Why does no one talk about liberal privilege?
I see so much talk nowadays about privilege, but one privilege that the media seems to conveniently leave out is liberal privilege. Liberal leaders are basically granted by big tech and the liberal media total immunity the consequences of what they say and do, while conservatives are systematically silence, oppressed and unfairly maligned. This encroaches on our fundamental rights as Americans to free speech and open discourse. Biden — Joe “Racial Jungle” Biden — is a racist, yet I don’t see the media scrutinizing his past like they’ve done to Trump. Biden clearly isn’t at his mental prime, yet I don’t see psychiatrists on every TV channel obsessed with his health like they were to Trump when he appeared to walk a tad bit slower down a staircase. Biden praised the KKK leader Robert Byrd, yet I don’t see past connections of his thoroughly examined by television hosts like they have for Trump. My only hope is that when basic rational thinking returns to this country — if it even does — it won’t be too late. But the liberal media has basically been engaging in a dry run for the 2020 election ever since 2016, and the damages seem to have sunk into this mediocre and braindead populace.
The cries and pleas for “diversity” conveniently do not encompass diversity of thought.
There should be no protection for "diversity of thought." It's absurd on it's face. You should be allowed to think what you want without interference from the government, but what you believe and what you say is a choice, and you should be liable for the consequences of those choices. Conservatives seem to have forgotten that part of it. You don't want to be labeled a bigot? Easy - don't be a bigot! If you think that gays shouldn't get married, that's your prerogative. If your boss doesn't like that point of view and fires you, that's theirs. See how easy it is? You can even believe that gays are unnatural or whatever, but as long as you don't say it, you're fine. A rule of thumb is that anyone who says there is no "diversity of thought" in this country, is a fucking bigot and is upset that they don't still enjoy the same privileges over people of color, or women, or [insert group here] that they used to and is pissed about it.
Whereas, being born black isn't a choice. Being gay isn't a choice. Being from Mexico isn't a choice. Those things are who you are. They are built into your literal DNA, orat least are determined before you are capable of making conscious decisions in that direction. The fact that people who believe the way you do have usually discriminated against darker skinned or non-heteronormative people is just the icing on the cake for demands to protect those groups.
The chief threat to the "freedom of thought and discussion" is, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, not laws forbidding speech, but rather the "social tyranny" of one's fellow citizens. To uphold freedom of thought and discussion, protection against the "tyranny of the magistrate" (i.e. the government and anti-free-speech laws) is, therefore, not enough: rather "there needs [to be] protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them". In other words, it is necessary to have measures in place protecting individuals from others punishing them "by means other than civil penalties" (such as, say, having your internship cancelled, being let go, or having your bonus cut).
In practice, what this means is having laws in place making it illegal to not-hire/ let go/ cancel one's internship/ in any way discriminate against an individual on account of their beliefs and expressed views, no matter how distasteful they may be -- in the same way it is illegal to do so on account of one's skin colour or gender.
Ahh the always striking irony of those intolerant of other views telling the very same ''don't be a bigot''. It's funny how your kind always accuses people of doing what you actually do.
All. The. Time.
Wow! Where to begin here... Well, for one, it seems that you have completely misconstrued what is meant by diversity of thought. The reason behind all of these calls for "diversity" is based upon the premise that a diverse workforce/environment improves productivity/overall outcomes due to the variety of perspectives that it provides. Sounds pretty rational in theory.. different people from different backgrounds collaborating and exposing each other to various perspectives and new ideas - great! Unfortunately, this is not the present-day reality. All of these so-called "diverse environments" (e.g. academia) are leftist echo chambers, where dissent and debate are not allowed. In fact, if you dare disagree with the sanctimonious mob, that's makes you an evil "bigot" (NOT actually bigotry!)
Free speech and debate used to be the heart and soul of having an intellectually curious and humble society. It used to be that people agreed to disagree. I'm a staunch conservative - I don't think that people who disagree with my worldview and perspective are inherently evil, bigoted, hateful, etc. Unfortunately, conservatives (especially ones who support their President!) are no longer given this same basic respect. Quite the opposite, actually, the premise of today's political debate in left-leaning circles is, how can any reasonable human being possibly be a Republican!? They must be a bigot!!! Yet, Democrats/leftists are completely immune from criticism (what op was referring to). You disagree with Kamala Harris on a policy issue (which once used to open the door for reasonable, intellectual debate) - nope, you're RACIST and SEXIST by virtue of disagreeing with her. How dare you! But oh my, a black conservative???? They're just dumb and self-hating and don't know better!!!
Should people be held accountable for their actions and reprimanded when they say inappropriate things? For sure! However, that's really NOT what is going on right now. The double standards on the premise of political alignments are absurd. The fact that you insinuated that I have discriminated against people because I implied I value diversity of thought really says it all..
As a side note, it's pretty funny how the people who are soooo quick to vilify those who disagree with them are the same ones who preach diversity and acceptance. These are the same people who still question how Trump could've ~possibly~ won.
This just screams the Bradley Effect. You should look into it.
Some people are treated unfairly by the media. This is not new. Question is - what can we do about it?
It's pretty simple for an intelligent human being, which seems to exclude you. You get judged by a combination of your words and actions, past and present.
Joe Biden is not a perfect person. No one is. But he seems to feel that people with darker skin color are human beings, worthy of respect, and also citizens worthy of the responsibilities and rights that come along with it. Mr Trump, and therefore anyone who votes for him or shields him from consequence, don't give that impression. If you build a political platform around the deliberate disenfranchisement of people of color, you naturally get scrutinized more closely, and have your "off the cuff" remarks taken more seriously, than someone who believes in equality under the law. Mr Biden has never made a statement as deliberately inflammatory (or wrong) as to call most Mexican Americans (or Mexicans in America) rapists and murderers. Mr Trump has. Mr Biden isn't campaigning to represent the political constituency that is associated with slavery and Jim Crow (in living memory, no less). The folks who go out and shoot black people, or Jews, or any minority group, overwhelmingly tend to be Republicans/conservatives. Terrorists, in a word.
All of that plays into why Mr Biden gets more of a pass from the media. The media are not and should not be "even handed" in the sense of attempting to portray two opposing sides as different but morally equal. Instead of assuming a media conspiracy to boost Mr Biden's good qualities and downplay his bad ones (though of course that happens to everyone to some extent depending on the outlet), perhaps its worth applying Occam's Razor and perhaps coming to the conclusion that Mr Biden is less racist, less ignorant, and more capable than Mr Trump, and therefore the news that comes out about him will be tilted to reflect that.
Joe Biden authored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that led to the mass incarceration of POC; just this month he essentially called Black voters a monolith; earlier this year he said "you ain't black" if you don't know whether to vote for him or Trump; and he called Obama the first mainstream African American to be articulate, bright and clean. Joe Biden is a racist, and to insinuate that he thinks of POC as equal is to ignore the plethora of racist comments and actions that he has been behind during his ~50 years in gov't.
Who are you going to vote for?
Trump. Mainly for tax purposes
No. You don't get to break it down like that. You are voting for all his policies, not just his tax policy (which is asinine anyway). As your intellectual compatriots like to say, take responsibility for your choices. If marginally lower taxes are worth disenfranchising your fellow citizens, facilitating the death of political opponents, and undermining democratic principles, at least come out and say that openly. Don't hide behind "taxes"
Where are you getting "facilitating the death of political opponents" from? I thought that was just a Clinton thing.
My biggest problem is your use of Occam's Razor. You just tried to use it to describe a multi factorial argument which is kinda against what Occam's Razor is against.
What? Not really...
Please do correct me if I'm wrong (because I love the concept), but I was under the impression that given two competing sets of facts/narratives, Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler one is generally more likely to be correct.
The question I was addressing was whether or not Donald Trump is treated unfairly by the media compared to Joe Biden, specifically in terms of whether or not he's a "racist" (a term I dislike, so putting it in air quotes). You either have to believe that there is a years (decades, in Mr Trump's case) long conspiracy by the vast majority of the US media to portray Donald Trump as a racist and to downplay the same in Mr Biden, anticipating that Mr Biden would run for POTUS eventually, or that maybe Mr Trump is in fact a bigot, and Mr Biden isn't quite so much of one. So, large scale conspiracy enacted over decades by rival media organizations for the purpose of discrediting a failed real estate developer (and later, President), or a mostly accurate reflection of the truth, as evidenced by the comments and actions of the two parties.
Seems like a perfect example of Occam's Razor to me, but again... I could be wrong.
man what a shitty ass comment, writing well doesn't make it less shitty it just shows surface level "educated" people are often absurdly closed minded
No, writing well shows that you've put thought into your argument and aren't parroting what Fox and Friends, or Rachel Maddow, told you to say right before you turned off your TV a few minutes ago.
You are under no obligation to agree with me. But it doesn't reflect particularly well on you either when your rebuttal is "man, these literate people are educated but have no idea what they're talking about" and end it with that. Why not tell me why I'm wrong? Or why I'm close minded? You know nothing about me except that I can write well and think Mr Trump is more racist than Mr Biden. You disagree - tell me why. Until you're willing to come out and take a position, you don't get to call me close minded, because I haven't actually closed my mind to anything you have to say.
Yeah I thought it wasn't racist at all when Biden said all black people think alike, that poor kids are just as smart as white kids, that they aren't actually black if they don't vote for him. Much better than Trump who said that a lot of the illegal immigrants are rapists.
And the one group who kills the most blacks is blacks, and it's not close at all
Well, at the risk of sounding like I support Mr Biden more than I do, let me try this out. This is what Mr Biden actually said, since unlike you I seem to traffic more in facts than hearsay.
From the point of view of a politician, there doesn't seem to be anything controversial here, even if it's phrased extremely poorly. 29% of Latinos voted for Trump in 2016. He won 8% of the black vote. Right off the bat, you can see that blacks as an electoral bloc are vastly more unified than Latinos. Which makes sense... as Mr Biden says very explicitly, the priorities of the Cuban-American population are vastly different than that of the Hispanic population elsewhere, for historic and social reasons. Again, Mr Biden is addressing a fundamentally accurate point about the demographics of American politics, in a really poorly phrased way.
Whereas Mr Trump saying that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, drug dealers, and murders is both more personally insulting (Mr Biden isn't calling anyone a criminal) and is flat out wrong, as reams of data support the fact that immigrants of all stripes are less likely to commit violent crime.
Not sure what "poor kids just as smart as white kids" means, except to maybe say that Biden conflated poverty and being black? Again, not sure where the problem is here. Black people are more likely to be poor, thanks in large part to the attitudes of people like Mr Trump and many of the contributors to this site. And again, this is a fundamentally positive message. If you did mean that this is a comment that blacks are poor, then Mr Biden is saying that there is no difference in average intelligence for a poor black kid versus a rich white kid, but merely that poverty restricts educational attainment for a variety of socio-economic reasons. Which again isn't even controversial, it's a well accepted fact.
Ah, and now the true colors are shown. What does this have to do with anything, except as a straw man argument to distract from the matter at hand and somehow imply that the only thing holding back minorities is the fact that they're incorrigibly violent ? Black people have been forced to live together (through literal slavery and forced confinement, and then more recently redlining), and it makes perfect sense that most violence is inter-communal. So you've made a shitty, meaningless point without even understand the context that might drive it. Good job!
The only people that bitch about “privilege” rather than accepting personal responsibility for their lives are liberals. Thus, it’s not shocking they’re not turning the weapon of cancel culture & silencing upon themselves.
Amen to this
Because conservatives (generally white people) already have privilege. Why would they bitch about it? What an asinine thing to say. "The only people who bitch about not being CEO are all the people who aren't CEOs." No shit, Sherlock.
And why, precisely, is "cancel culture" a weapon? Do you not believe in capitalism, in the ability to vote with your wallet? I am always genuinely amazed by this kind of hypocrisy. You have companies like Hobby Lobby that want exemption from federal laws based on their beliefs, and yet I as a consumer don't get to patronize a business based on having shared values with them? My guess is you supported that bakery that didn't want to serve a gay couple's wedding cake. Well, why is this any different?
I don't want to support people who don't share my values. Or rather, I want a shared value set to be an input into whether or not I buy a product or service. That's literally all cancel culture is. What kind of socialist monster are you, that you want to dictate how a business should operate!
Gramps, you should take this post to Reddit or your local tavern in my opinion. I don't find political rants that common in the workplace, and certainly not productive.
The simple answer is: most of the mainstream media is liberal leaning, so they are not going to shoot themselves in the foot. Is it hypocritical? Of course. I find it personally frustrating but politics is full of hypocrisy, that's not going to change. Ideally, as a media consumer, you should have the intelligence to see through this bias and try to filter out what is objective vs subjective reporting, then make your own decisions from there.
Why do some conservative people bitch about liberals but liberals rarely create topics to bitch about conservatives. Is it the fear of MS or is it that liberals do not care all that much about the views of conservatives?
Or maybe it’s because conservatives have more to bitch about? Like someone posted earlier, the media in this country is overwhelmingly liberal, and that is a powerful force to be reckoned with. Companies can spew all the liberal ideology they want in their ads, and almost nothing will happen to them. In contrast, the CEO of Goya made not even a 5 minute speech saying that he’s “blessed” to be in this country and to have Trump as President, and there’s an entire movement in the media calling for a boycott of the company. The man is Hispanic, the speech was about donating a million cans to food banks, and now his company gets boycotted just for a single statement. Is that not enough? Look at James Damore. All he did was criticize Google’s diversity hiring process and offer better alternatives. He was denounced as a sexist and fired. I could go on and on. Very rarely does the same kind of treatment happen to people on the more liberal end.The slightest support for a cause that isn’t deemed “progressive” is enough to get you slaughtered by the media and possible fired, and that sure seems like something to bitch about.
There is this thing called Fox News, which is I heard is very popular. (and others) Did you stop and think that people could differing opinions on issues?
OK, what's your issue? Goya represents a set of values that liberals don't appreciate - voting with your wallet is perfectly reasonable in that circumstance. Just like some Jews don't buy German made cars because of the role of automakers in employing slave labor during the Holocaust. You can't have this both ways. If you want to be able to speak your mind with impunity, you have to accept the consequences of doing so.
Moreover, this assumption that both sides have equal cause to complain is absurd on it's face. Perhaps the media leans liberal because most of the country is liberal? Or perhaps because liberal politics are essentially more ethical than conservative politics? There is no requirement that the media give equal weight to all opinions. If an avowed Klansman ran for office and said that we should return the country to the state it was in in 1860, slavery and all, no one in their right mind would think that there should be an effort to give that position equal moral standing with someone who believes slavery is wrong. Modern conservatism may not be quite so bad as that, but the principle is the same.
Liberals don't bitch about conservatives? - Every single major institution in this country...media, entertainment, sports, all of higher ed is constantly telling you that conservative ideas are bad and discriminatory.
The only difference is conservatives can't fight back effectively because they don't really have any power to shape public opinion besides Fox News. There is a reason the media (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) censored all the violence at the "mostly peaceful" ongoing riots in Portland. They know if they show black-clad anarchists throwing Molatov cocktails at police and smashing storefronts that will drive the average voter to the right (especially when the rioters face no consequences).
Often to incite meaningful change from the status quo, it is human nature to rush to the other extreme in order to push something into that direction. Think of a pendulum that someone is holding to the far right. When you let it go to center it, it doesn't stay in the center but rather moves far left. Only eventually after several swings does it moderate.
It's a similar concept at play here. Those on the far right back in the day laughed off far left ideas and now to compensate the far left is unwilling to let anyone on the far right talk. The crappy part is that this hurts moderates. For someone who is center of maybe a tad right of center, they are vilified as racist / sexist / something-ist even when bringing up logical viewpoints.
My issue with this is that maybe doing what I do (fundamental analysis), I want to get at the truth. Nothing else. But when you're blocked for asking questions that reveal the truth even when they are uncomfortable (and may bring to light things you don't want them to), it makes it much harder. That's why the vast majority of my friends are moderates. I have none on the far right and only 2 on the far left. The far left sickens me just as much as the far right, and they have 0 room to argue that they are better.
Best thing to do if you're in these situations is to stop engaging. Far right is just too stupid to understand opposing arguments while far left is far too stupid to understand opposing arguments. There's nothing they hate worse than when you say "I don't give a shit, you do you" as they seem to think they can influence you if they just shout loud enough and call you names. Ignore them, just be laser focused on your own goals. There are things you can change and things you can't. Don't waste energy on sad libtards who have $200 in the bank or angry factory workers who think immigrants are evil. Both extremes are crap.
I consider myself a moderate as well, although lately I’ve realized I may be slightly left of center. I agree with you. I think the extremes on both sides just ruin the validity of everything.
Someone can point to the far left crying about how the surgeon is well paid but their Gender Studies of Pugs degree isn’t working out. Someone can also point to the far right saying Trump is the second coming of Christ himself and wearing a mask is a medical procedure. Both extremes are just stupid.
I genuinely believe Americans just forgot how to listen, and now we live in a society where freedom of thought is confused with ignoring facts, but also confused with the inability to have a different opinion. Strange
I agree in principle, but in practice it isn't the same. Student loan forgiveness is a minor plank of the Democratic platform, and even then it isn't geared towards helping Gender Studies of Pugs graduates find jobs - even among liberals there isn't a lot of sympathy for that. But the idea that Donald Trump is infallible, that listening to science and expert opinion is for suckers, is very much the driving principle behind the current Republican party. Again, painting the two as equally absurd isn't correct. Take your own experience! You consider yourself a moderate, but find yourself left of center. That is because the modern right has drifted increasingly rightward, and almost certainly not (though again, I don't know you so I could be mistake) because of some fundamental shift in your values. The kind of corporatist, plutocratic nationalism represented on the right is a massive shift from where we were twenty years ago. Global politics has little to do with America, but when you think about the traditional left/right divide in politics, even the American left is center right from an objective standard.
Far left liberals hate it when you tell them they are wrong, usually by calling you sexist or corporate pig or racist. They truly cannot stand opposing viewpoints but most of them are poor and have nothing going for them so just ignore
If being a liberal is such a huge advantage, why are half of the people willingly playing for the losing team?
Way more than half.
Astounding how footage like the stuff in this vid hasn't been blasted all over the airwaves isn't it?
It's because there's been a concerted effort to demonize anyone that's not "progressive" for years now. For the actual leaders of the DNC, the "establishment" Democrats, it's never been about "diversity." It's never been about "preventing hate speech." It's never been about "equality." This is literally the party that founded the KKK, fought for the Confederates, instituted Jim Crow, created the private prison system, and wrote the infamous Crime Bill that's imprisoned more minorities than any other legislation in the 20th and 21st century. They use those aforementioned liberal phrases to mobilize the useful idiots as Yuri so aptly describes them here.
It's always been about control, which is apparent when you look at how invasive to individual liberties the DNC has become over the last several decades with the policies and narratives they push:
Follow these 5 easy steps as laid out by Yuri and congratulations, you've subverted a democracy. Now you can do literally whatever you want at the bureaucratic-level without fear of an uprising, all that's left to do is look outward at the world and subjugate any who might try to liberate your citizens. Easy enough when you already wield a military force that is essentially the modern day equivalent of the Sword of Damocles.
The only way to avoid letting the extreme liberals turn the rest of the country into a cesspool of crime and poverty like they have LA, SF, Chicago, NYC, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. is to vote Republican. It's appalling that that has come to mean voting for Trump, he's puerile and unbecoming for a leadership role, but it is what it is. The Democrats have gone beyond the pale and are beyond redemption (in my eyes at least).
How many fucking times does a moron have to make this point before we can put it to bed? Just because you call a horse a duck, doesn't make it so. Yes, Democrats were the party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of all the terrible shit you describe. And yet, those voters now reside in the Republican Party. If I was a conservative Dixiecrat, I now vote Republican. Full stop. And it was intentional - it's called the Southern Strategy and it's long been acknowledged by Republican leadership as an ongoing conscious effort to woo racists who were dissatisfied with Civil Rights in the 70s.
You can call them Democrats or fucking Whigs for all I care - but the truth is that they're conservatives, and their modern home is in the Republican party. If it's uncomfortable for you to accept that your party of low taxes and "fiscal responsibility" (cue laugh track) is also actively courting bigots, white supremacists, and religious nutjobs, well - too fucking bad.
I love that you throw this out like some kind of "gotcha!" moment. That was nearly 3 decades ago - views change, policies get tested, and intelligent, rational people evaluate the results and change their positions accordingly. Sure, Joe Biden was "tough on crime" and, seeing as he's a politician, he may genuinely believe in all that. But here he is, knowing that his previous position didn't work, and adopting a new one. How the fuck is that something to lambast him, or anyone else, for? It's part and parcel of the whole conservative fixation on disregarding fact and science and logic. Your gut is more important than the facts, your opinion is more valid than an experts, and once you've made up your mind, it's shameful to take another position, regardless of what other information comes to light. Whereas over in the rational part of the country, liberals understand that everything should be subject to changing conditions. So Joe Biden coauthored legislation that was incredibly harmful. Lets not let him off the hook, but lets also appreciate that he's changed his outlook.
You mean a school system that is dilapidated because conservatives won't fund it? You mean the debt-mill university system that Republicans refuse to allow the government to pay for? And also, there is a saying I like - if you can't spot the idiot in the room, it's you. Well, maybe universities aren't indoctrinating students, but more that being exposed to a variety of ideas and people from different walks of life makes being a conservative an ethically untenable political position? Maybe, just maybe, being a modern American liberal correlates with intelligence and education for the simple fact that it's a smarter position to be taking? Again... hard to imagine a conspiracy as vast as what you're describing being pulled off when these places can barely run themselves. Perhaps your just the idiot in the room.
Well, given that the "victim mentality" is just as prevalent on the American right as on the left, I'd say this is more than a liberal plot. I mean, here you are, the quintessential victim, complaining about how the game is being rigged against you!
This is insulting, in addition to being wrong. The idea that people want to sit at home and collect an unemployment check is arrogant in the extreme - some will, but that is inevitable. Besides, it's rather rich that this is a tenet of Republican orthodoxy, when many red states are little more than federal colonies being subsidized by the coastal states.
OK... and the people who can't afford private insurance? If publicly funded health insurance equates to "being dependent on the state to survive" then you are effectively calling for the immediate murder of anyone who can't afford private insurance. You know, since they can't depend on the state to "literally survive" anymore.
Well, the police and military get more funding because Republicans demand it, so... I think you're starting to wander from your original premise? And of course, your average redneck commando bringing his rifle into a Starbucks is all that stands between me and the federal government sending me to a work camp. So glad there are small-dicked fools like you out there willing to compensate by buying a gun, or else I'd have my rights trampled on!
Funnily enough, just those six cities generates 22% of US GDP. Real poverty stricken, huh? You're confusing wealth disparity with poverty - obviously we'd all be better off if everyone was poor and living in a trailer park, Mississippi-style.
And yes, cities have crime. What a brilliant insight. But homicide rates are highest in mostly-rural red states, not highly urbanized areas.
Well I certainly triggerd your clearly better educated and morally righteous sensibilities didn't I? Your need to resort to ad hominem right off the bat is so indicative of exactly what I'm talking about. It's so hard to have civil discussion with the modern liberal. You'd rather march through the streets burning down buildings and accuse anyone who doesn't cheer you on of being a racist/bigot than actually sit down to have a constructive discussion instead of assuming the other side always comes to the table in bad faith. I even said at the end of my post that I am appalled by Trump and where things are headed, but I would rather have 4 more years of Trump and 8 years of Pence before I have someone who shares your POV in the White House. But on to actually addressing your points and hopefully making my opinions a bit clearer.
To kick things off Republicans aren't "my" party. In case you couldn't tell from my dislike of the state in its entirety, Libertarian is. I hate that both parties seem happy to continue extending the patriot act and BOTH parties consistently cross the line of what I personally consider appropriate on a seemingly daily basis, but my whole stance comes from choosing what I personally see as the lesser of two evils (painfully all too common a choice now). We're in agreement that the idea of the Republicans being the party of fiscal responsibility is laughable. But on the topic of racists, the Democratic party has just as many if not more on it's side if you feel like pointing fingers. But I guess you only count it if it's people targeting black, hispanic and middle eastern and not white or asian right? And religious nutjobs? Intersectionality is the religion of the left, and it's been getting increasingly more extreme with each passing year. You've got gangs of black clad marxists sweeping through the streets attacking people and holding literal struggle sessions. Let me know when the next Christian fundamentalist or Jewish zealot decides to stone a woman to death for showing more than just her eyes or starts throwing members of the LGBT community off a roof ok? Oh wait, that's Sharia talking someone get Ilhan Omar on the phone.
As for my "gotcha," Joe could have changed his mind, but he clearly hasn't. Poor kids are just as smart as white kids amiright? In multiple interviews he has proudly proclaimed that he sponsored the Crime Bill and defends it to this very day whenever it is brought up. It is genuinely HILARIOUS that you are crying foul for bringing out old footage of Biden going on a racist tirade describing people of color as animals who belong in a cage away from civilized society. This when your party is the one that spends its spare time hunting through 10-year old tweets to confirm you're in the right for getting someone fired over saying the wrong pronoun.
The idea that our school system is underfunded is laughably wrong on so many levels. The US spends more per K-12 student than any other developed nation and yet we have terrible outcomes. If you'd like to focus on one of the fundamental causes for US children's underperformance relative to their EU peers, look no further than the Common Core curriculum (started in 2010 under Obama). The public school system is a mechanism for teaching to the lowest common denominator rather than making the effort to teach through multiple more impactful methods and routinely stifles actually gifted students from reaching their full potential.
The university debt mill system was CREATED by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (passed under LBJ, another Democrat) guaranteeing student loans for an intangible good. With no stipulations towards requiring the borrower to study something that will make it remotely possible that they pay it back in the future. It's no surprise we have garbage departments of intersectional drivel popping up pushing their "diversity and inclusion" offices while trying to hamstring the science and business programs that actually contribute to the school's operations and society at large. When the university system knows that anyone can get the funding for college they lower standards and turn their focus to building the biggest buildings and other attractions that draw students to them. Of course, the only way to pay for that is to continue pushing the narrative that you'll never succeed without a degree while raising tuition prices at an unsustainable rate. It's almost as if every time the government steps into a system beyond just regulation of externalities it ends up perverting natural market dynamics and causes a pricing issue... like it also does with healthcare... and housing... Not everyone SHOULD go to college. In fact I'd argue that there are some people who probably aren't cut out to even finish high school, and that's not a drag on them. People aren't born with the same mental attributes and cannot be expected to achieve equality in terms of their educational output, just like not everyone has the physical attributes to play in the NFL/NHL/MLB/NBA. The only equality people have (and should have) is equality under the law and equal right to respect and dignity. Of course your statements towards rednecks and rural communities makes it clear you don't share my opinion.
Don't take my word for any of this though, not that you ever would since I'm clearly just some tiny-dicked idiot in your opinion. Here are 3 interviews with actual PHDs (
, Eric Weinstein, ) discussing for 9 hours the problem that has been growing within the confines university system among other current event topics. Surely you'll listen to 3 highly educated men who have historically been hardline Democrats and progressive thinkers that are providing cogent arguments as to why voting for the modern progressive Democrat now is tantamount to suicide for our societal and political system. And please don't go acting like this is some right-wing source, Rogan endorsed Bernie Sanders for god's sake which if anything is something about him that I heavily criticize. I would be interested to hear your enlightened opinion on why the DNC cheated that man out of the nomination for two cycles in a row now when he's probably the single progressive that's been brought to the table who could actually run a competitive race against Trump, but I digress.Next I'd love to hit on this point in particular:
I did not say that publicly funded health insurance in and of itself equates to being dependent on the state to survive. Nor did I call for the murder of anyone. This is classic you just want people to die rhetoric, which of course is a signal that you don't actually have any sort of argument here. The issue of healthcare could be its own thread but the bottom line is the reason it's so expensive in the first place is (at least in my opinion) because our bipartisan government doesn't have the balls to force hospitals and other care providers to provide transparent pricing. Without that there is no competition, and the consumer will always lose. I hate the current system we have in this country. Probably more than you do, as I've personally been involved in an accident that resulted an obscene load of medical debt when I was younger and it was after learning about how the system operates on the back end that I stopped pursuing medicine and switched to finance. It's literally the one service you have no idea the cost of until after it is rendered, which is completely unethical given that without said service, like you say, people will die.
But still, no, the government should not pay for healthcare. It should spend it's time educating people about how to live a healthy life. Since the leading killer of Americans are things like obesity, heart disease, and smoking (talk about first world problems), which are all majorly a result of individual choices, the individual should be burdened with the cost. If you choose to be some fat fuck and need to have multiple surgeries and medications to survive just so you can keep stuffing yourself with McChickens, you deserve to be crushed under the burden of your decisions. Whether its metaphorically by debt or literally from your chest being so cellulite laden you can't breath when you lay down is up to you. At no point should the the rest of society have to subsidize your shitty decisions, full stop.
Your ignorance is showing when claim that the Republicans are the only ones demanding the military and police get more funding. That's yet another bipartisan issue, but if you really want to point fingers, which administration decided to keep us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and got us into Syria to the tune of trillions of dollars, and which administration is trying to get us out of all of the above? The fact that you think someone wanting to own a firearm stems from a need to "compensate" for something makes me think you're probably from some cushy suburb, but you could just as easily just be lacking in a formal education here. Gun control was started as a way to prevent minorities from being able to possess firearms during a time when the government still had discriminatory laws on the books and regularly used the police to terrorize their neighborhoods. But keep drinking the kool-aid that tells you a law is going to stop someone who has already made the decision that they want to KILL people from doing so and ignore that the only people hurt by said laws are by default the law abiding citizens.
Not sure what point you're trying to make stating that those 6 cities make up 22% of the US GDP. Good job, you can do addition. You do realize that those metropolitan areas make up roughly 16% of the US population right? Pretty sure we can chalk up that 6% difference to the fact that 4 of them are major global hubs for finance, entertainment and technology, industries that the majority of people living in them are not a part of. That does nothing to detract from the the fact that they have the greatest examples of wealth disparity, largest homeless populations, and are operating at budget deficits due to the tax dollars they waste on ineffective social programs that clearly aren't addressing the the causation of said disparity (but do a great job of lining the pockets of government administrators). And no, we wouldn't be better off if everyone was poor. But that's where we're headed if people keep voting for literal communists that hide behind the label "Democratic Socialist."
I sincerely hope you can take a step away from your Trump derangement syndrome and make an effort to form a cohesive thought, but I won't hold my breath. You've made me feel a bit better about where I'm casting my vote, and for that I thank you. Enjoy your weekend @Ozymandia
https://outline.com/kdfTdh, Larry Hogan- a GOP Governor's (so little to no bias there and his state has been doing okay, so he is not looking to shift any blame) criticism of Trump administration in handling of the pandemic. Of course, it is ridiculous for any one person to be responsible for more than 170K deaths, but can the administration and leadership in DC take some responsibility, just a little bit? Is that too much to ask for? Vote for Trump or Biden, people are allowed to have different opinions (lets not forget its still just an opinion afterall, is it really unfathomable that one would vote for either candidate), and as someone who has voted for both republican and democratic presidents several times in my life time, this tribalism and the whole my guy is God and your guy is literally Satan thing in this thread is pretty weird.
This isn't just a "liberal thing". It's an everybody thing. It's incredibly sad and quite harmful that both liberals and conservatives fail to see through this. Conservatives have their own media. Liberals have their own. MSNBC is to liberals as is Fox News is to conservatives.
The real issue is in the division of the media. You listen/watch to what you like to hear and you never actually learn the truth. Media of all sides has turned into a giant propaganda machine that makes this country dumber by the day. CNN used to be somewhat of a middle ground, but even that has turned into another propaganda machine. Only sources that tries not to lay some political agenda but actually tries to ask the right questions seem to be WSJ and maybe ABC. Besides, some foreign sources like BBC seem somewhat unbiased (as they should be).
Repudiandae quisquam soluta sapiente aperiam. Dolor facilis recusandae harum molestiae numquam fuga molestias. Possimus eaque soluta corporis fugiat sed ut.
Aspernatur sapiente officiis cum accusantium dolorem sunt. Ullam voluptatem libero amet nemo et. Qui sapiente eos dolor sapiente officiis officiis et dolores.
Est aperiam veniam velit aliquam quo voluptas et. Repellendus et dicta a expedita occaecati quae nihil. Deserunt quaerat commodi explicabo sed sit debitis dolorem.
Adipisci amet voluptatem labore voluptas eaque enim rerum omnis. Laborum ut tempora laborum et tempora ex ut voluptate. Ad quidem quis est tempora. Possimus eos rerum delectus illo aut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Voluptatum culpa voluptatum possimus nihil quam. Et alias est eligendi velit molestias. Rem maiores in libero quae atque aliquam.
Nobis quae voluptatem nisi sit velit. Placeat consequuntur ad nemo in dicta.
Eius laboriosam ullam commodi maiores. Ad quaerat magni accusantium non atque saepe.
Eveniet et ipsa at quis ipsum et. Nobis aut iste iusto voluptatem magni. Maxime qui qui dolore aliquam quisquam. Ratione animi non reprehenderit porro. Hic et omnis quisquam exercitationem. Exercitationem unde consequatur autem ut. Quasi iste voluptatem enim.
Aliquam voluptas ea quas dignissimos. Distinctio voluptate rerum amet voluptatem ut. Rerum eligendi dolor vero culpa pariatur nam explicabo. Sit cupiditate suscipit perspiciatis. Consectetur aut dolore sed et quis et aut numquam.