|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 15 2020 23:17 farvacola wrote:
I can not confirm this, but word is that SCOTUS has found in a 6-3 that firing someone because they’re gay, lesbian, or transgender violates the plain language of Title VII.
If true, color me surprised and extremely happy. The positive implications of this decision for folks interested in progress can not be overstated.
It’s true alright, Chief Roberts and Gorsuch both voted for protections. This is happening after Trumps positioning on it from last week. Here’s the link to it.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees
|
I read 'firing' as 'shooting' and was confused for awhile.
|
On June 15 2020 18:48 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote:
I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism. The thing about statistics is it's quite easy to spin the numbers to look like they prove whatever point you want to prove. If we take your example of X% of black vs other races' people being in prison, it doesn't actually prove that a higher proportion of black people are criminals. Even if we ignore every other possible variable and circumstance, a statistic like that could actually be interpreted in the completely opposite way -- that the harsher police treatment of black people leads to a higher arrest & incarceration rates -- and there is literally no 'rational' or 'logical' way to establish which line of thinking is correct (based on that single statistic at least). Spitting out simple statistics such as this as a way to 'prove' your point is a very good way to sound convincing and intellectual to folks who don't know better, but it is hardly more 'logical' or 'data-focused.' It's just hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers to make your arguments appear stronger and more sciency.
Oh yes I'm well aware, but I find in listening to these people talk, they tend to take statistic more at face value, or at least be willing to base policy or moral decision-making on them. It's not an accident that pretty much all of the educated right wingers have an arsenal of statistics related to black crime to justify the police's treatment of them in the majority.
It seems George Floyd is the straw for even most of them, but almost every other killing has people keen to justify it. I'm not saying they're disingenuous, as I know other posters will, I think that they're willing to trust the statistics because it at least provides a basis of agreement to have discussions from. They know that statistics can be manipulated, but all that you do by leaning on that is shut down the ability to discuss, period.
Better to work from somewhat faulty data than work from no data at all, etc.
|
On June 15 2020 23:49 Sr18 wrote:
I read 'firing' as 'shooting' and was confused for awhile.
In this era, it's certainly an easy mistake. If it was "firing AT", then you'd probably be right haha
On June 15 2020 23:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2020 23:17 farvacola wrote:
I can not confirm this, but word is that SCOTUS has found in a 6-3 that firing someone because they’re gay, lesbian, or transgender violates the plain language of Title VII.
If true, color me surprised and extremely happy. The positive implications of this decision for folks interested in progress can not be overstated. It’s true alright, Chief Roberts and Gorsuch both voted for protections. This is happening after Trumps positioning on it from last week. Here’s the link to it. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees
Do you happen to know what Trump's position was/is? I'm guessing you're referring to his rollback of certain LGBT protections, like: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/trump-lgbtq-patient-protections-315819
|
No, iamthedave, not at all, actually. Because in everything scientific, the golden rule is: shit input = shit output.
Interpreting some data without any context or not thinking deeper about it at all just sets you up to making a fool out of yourself.
There are at least 3-4 layers when we have to untangle a statistic like "black people are statistically more prone to commit violent crimes to white people". The correct response is not: "they are correct to do some racial profiling", but they need to ask, why these demographs turn out the way they do.
Is it area related? Is it socio-cultural? Is is socio-economical? Is it historically? Is it power-abuse? Is it racism? This is a deeply complex issue that ties into US history, city development and legislation.
Humans are humans, thinking that somehow the color of your skin can make you more violent for some reason or another is quite racist in itself.
|
Looking at the reasoning people are using to be mad about the supreme court ruling, I am seeing a consistent trend. Many of these perspectives seem to be grounded in social conservatism. In my eyes, that shows that there socially conservative ideals that make someone think it should be legal to fire someone for being LGBT. I think that reflects poorly on social conservative belief structures.
|
On June 16 2020 01:24 Uldridge wrote:
Is it area related? Is it socio-cultural? Is is socio-economical? Is it historically? Is it power-abuse? Is it racism? This is a deeply complex issue that ties into US history, city development and legislation.
This is a good way to frame the issue because it lays plain why the "right way" to go about fixing things deals in answering "yes" to all of those questions at once.
|
On June 16 2020 01:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2020 23:49 Sr18 wrote:
I read 'firing' as 'shooting' and was confused for awhile. In this era, it's certainly an easy mistake. If it was "firing AT", then you'd probably be right haha Show nested quote +On June 15 2020 23:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 15 2020 23:17 farvacola wrote:
I can not confirm this, but word is that SCOTUS has found in a 6-3 that firing someone because they’re gay, lesbian, or transgender violates the plain language of Title VII.
If true, color me surprised and extremely happy. The positive implications of this decision for folks interested in progress can not be overstated. It’s true alright, Chief Roberts and Gorsuch both voted for protections. This is happening after Trumps positioning on it from last week. Here’s the link to it. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees Do you happen to know what Trump's position was/is? I'm guessing you're referring to his rollback of certain LGBT protections, like: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/trump-lgbtq-patient-protections-315819
What else would I be talking about? I was phone posting, but figured everyone would know, like yourself, what I was talking about.
|
On June 16 2020 01:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 01:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 15 2020 23:49 Sr18 wrote:
I read 'firing' as 'shooting' and was confused for awhile. In this era, it's certainly an easy mistake. If it was "firing AT", then you'd probably be right haha On June 15 2020 23:34 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 15 2020 23:17 farvacola wrote:
I can not confirm this, but word is that SCOTUS has found in a 6-3 that firing someone because they’re gay, lesbian, or transgender violates the plain language of Title VII.
If true, color me surprised and extremely happy. The positive implications of this decision for folks interested in progress can not be overstated. It’s true alright, Chief Roberts and Gorsuch both voted for protections. This is happening after Trumps positioning on it from last week. Here’s the link to it. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees Do you happen to know what Trump's position was/is? I'm guessing you're referring to his rollback of certain LGBT protections, like: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/12/trump-lgbtq-patient-protections-315819 What else would I be talking about? I was phone posting, but figured everyone would know, like yourself, what I was talking about.
Just double-checking that I haven't missed any additional news 
|
On June 16 2020 00:46 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2020 18:48 Salazarz wrote:On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote:
I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism. The thing about statistics is it's quite easy to spin the numbers to look like they prove whatever point you want to prove. If we take your example of X% of black vs other races' people being in prison, it doesn't actually prove that a higher proportion of black people are criminals. Even if we ignore every other possible variable and circumstance, a statistic like that could actually be interpreted in the completely opposite way -- that the harsher police treatment of black people leads to a higher arrest & incarceration rates -- and there is literally no 'rational' or 'logical' way to establish which line of thinking is correct (based on that single statistic at least). Spitting out simple statistics such as this as a way to 'prove' your point is a very good way to sound convincing and intellectual to folks who don't know better, but it is hardly more 'logical' or 'data-focused.' It's just hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers to make your arguments appear stronger and more sciency. Oh yes I'm well aware, but I find in listening to these people talk, they tend to take statistic more at face value, or at least be willing to base policy or moral decision-making on them. It's not an accident that pretty much all of the educated right wingers have an arsenal of statistics related to black crime to justify the police's treatment of them in the majority. It seems George Floyd is the straw for even most of them, but almost every other killing has people keen to justify it. I'm not saying they're disingenuous, as I know other posters will, I think that they're willing to trust the statistics because it at least provides a basis of agreement to have discussions from. They know that statistics can be manipulated, but all that you do by leaning on that is shut down the ability to discuss, period. Better to work from somewhat faulty data than work from no data at all, etc.
This is very wrong, as another poster already pointed out. It's not even a problem of faulty data -- it's a problem of not even knowing whether the data we are looking at is indeed relevant, assuming that it is, and making decisions that could be completely wrong because of that -- and then pushing these decisions as 'scientific' and 'evidence-backed.'
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.png
|
Can someone explain this article of qualified immunity to me? I tried to read it a few times but I'm still left more confused than when I went in. A quick quote is:
Amid the tumult over police brutality allegations across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to reexamine the much-criticized, modern-day legal doctrine created by judges that has shielded police and other government officials from lawsuits over their conduct.
In an unsigned order, the court declined to hear cases seeking reexamination of the doctrine of "qualified immunity." Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the "qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text."
It takes the votes of four justices to grant review of a case.
Developed in recent decades by the high court, the qualified immunity doctrine, as applied to police, initially asks two questions: Did police use excessive force, and if they did, should they have known that their conduct was illegal because it violated a "clearly established" prior court ruling that barred such conduct?
Source
|
Basically, SCOTUS said they won't take those cases and they basically never explain why. My guess is that they want lower courts to develop some splits and different takes on how the doctrine should be altered before they take a QI case.
|
On June 16 2020 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Basically, SCOTUS said they won't take those cases and they basically never explain why. My guess is that they want lower courts to develop some splits and different takes on how the doctrine should be altered before they take a QI case.
Thanks. I kept reading the article and never found why they tossed it and Thomas' explanation did nothing for me at all either. We'll have to see what the lower courts come up with in the coming months because you know there are going to be a ton of verdicts on this.
|
On June 16 2020 01:24 Uldridge wrote:
No, iamthedave, not at all, actually. Because in everything scientific, the golden rule is: shit input = shit output.
Interpreting some data without any context or not thinking deeper about it at all just sets you up to making a fool out of yourself.
There are at least 3-4 layers when we have to untangle a statistic like "black people are statistically more prone to commit violent crimes to white people". The correct response is not: "they are correct to do some racial profiling", but they need to ask, why these demographs turn out the way they do.
Is it area related? Is it socio-cultural? Is is socio-economical? Is it historically? Is it power-abuse? Is it racism? This is a deeply complex issue that ties into US history, city development and legislation.
Humans are humans, thinking that somehow the color of your skin can make you more violent for some reason or another is quite racist in itself.
Well obviously. But I've seen plenty of them be happy to admit there are systemic problems but the crime statistics are self-standing and need to be acted on.
How you get to the place and the problem does not resolve the problem, many would say.
I'm having to devils advocate here because this isn't how I feel about the topics, but it's what I see consistently evinced by more educated and more intelligent right-wing speakers at most levels. There seems a consistent throughline of working with statistics as they are - even accepting that statistics can be manipulated - and basing approaches to societal issues on that. Were I such a person, for example, I know that right now I'd be reached for statistics about violent crime in primarily black urban environments and comparing them to the same crime stats for the rest of said urban environment.
I don't know myself what the result of that would be, but I'm guessing in most cases it'd lead to the discussions I've listened to in all kinds of different settings.
On June 16 2020 03:00 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 00:46 iamthedave wrote:On June 15 2020 18:48 Salazarz wrote:On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote:
I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism. The thing about statistics is it's quite easy to spin the numbers to look like they prove whatever point you want to prove. If we take your example of X% of black vs other races' people being in prison, it doesn't actually prove that a higher proportion of black people are criminals. Even if we ignore every other possible variable and circumstance, a statistic like that could actually be interpreted in the completely opposite way -- that the harsher police treatment of black people leads to a higher arrest & incarceration rates -- and there is literally no 'rational' or 'logical' way to establish which line of thinking is correct (based on that single statistic at least). Spitting out simple statistics such as this as a way to 'prove' your point is a very good way to sound convincing and intellectual to folks who don't know better, but it is hardly more 'logical' or 'data-focused.' It's just hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers to make your arguments appear stronger and more sciency. Oh yes I'm well aware, but I find in listening to these people talk, they tend to take statistic more at face value, or at least be willing to base policy or moral decision-making on them. It's not an accident that pretty much all of the educated right wingers have an arsenal of statistics related to black crime to justify the police's treatment of them in the majority. It seems George Floyd is the straw for even most of them, but almost every other killing has people keen to justify it. I'm not saying they're disingenuous, as I know other posters will, I think that they're willing to trust the statistics because it at least provides a basis of agreement to have discussions from. They know that statistics can be manipulated, but all that you do by leaning on that is shut down the ability to discuss, period. Better to work from somewhat faulty data than work from no data at all, etc. This is very wrong, as another poster already pointed out. It's not even a problem of faulty data -- it's a problem of not even knowing whether the data we are looking at is indeed relevant, assuming that it is, and making decisions that could be completely wrong because of that -- and then pushing these decisions as 'scientific' and 'evidence-backed.' https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.png
No, it's not wrong at all. It's literally what they do, which was my point in the first place.
But it IS why left and right wing people struggle to have productive discussions these days.
|
What are people's takes on resistance to masks in the US? Tom Rice apparently refused to wear one and it is an issue we are seeing in a disproportionate way between the two parties. I don't think it is simply wanting to stay on message with Trump's general denial. I think there are psychological reasons that republicans don't want to wear masks, but I am not sure what that is.
https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-congressman-with-coronavirus-refused-to-wear-mask-in-capitol-2020-6?amp&__twitter_impression=true
When CNN reporter Manu Raju asked Rice why he wasn't wearing a mask in the chamber on May 28, the congressman said he could maintain at least 6 feet of distance from everyone on the floor and in the halls of the Capitol and therefore didn't need to wear a mask. COVID-19 can spread even from asymptomatic carriers.
The idea of "But what if I don't need to, what if I can avoid wearing this mask somehow?" is strange. If I thought there was a 1% chance it would prevent someone being infected I'd say "sure, why not". The fact that it is much better than that makes it a slam dunk. It would take extremely little to convince me to wear a mask. Why does it feel like a major sticking point for conservatives? It feels like there is a greater perceived cost of wearing a mask to conservatives. I don't need much benefit to be convinced to wear a mask.
|
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear?
|
Literally the only excuse, barring medical conditions that have complications with wearing masks - at which point stay the fuck home, that I've heard for not wearing a mask is to not deplete an insufficient PPE stockpile so healthcare workers have access to them and it's been a long time since that was true.
|
On June 16 2020 03:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2020 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Basically, SCOTUS said they won't take those cases and they basically never explain why. My guess is that they want lower courts to develop some splits and different takes on how the doctrine should be altered before they take a QI case. Thanks. I kept reading the article and never found why they tossed it and Thomas' explanation did nothing for me at all either. We'll have to see what the lower courts come up with in the coming months because you know there are going to be a ton of verdicts on this.
If you want some of the inside baseball on it, basically Thomas has been calling QI bad law for his whole career. Over the last 20+ years the court has basically never taken a QI case, and instead summarily reverse just about every court that didn't grant QI with massive majorities on the court voting against, and of course without issuing an opinion. Thomas writes basically this exact same dissent every time.
Mostly no one aside from the libertarians at Volokh Conspiracy and Bleeding Heart Libertarians ever paid him lipservice because QI protects an unholy alliance of cops, teachers, and public service employees. While the cops are the ones in high profile cases, because of the nature of the jobs, they aren't necessarily the majority. Thus you could never really get a coalition.
|
On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear?
In their defense a lot of people were giving the advice that wearing the masks we're expected to now was more dangerous than not wearing them. Accepting the justification to expect people to wear them now is pretty damning of the initial discouraging of cloth masks.
|
On June 16 2020 11:39 Fleetfeet wrote:
Isn't a fundamental aspect of being a conservative an inherent resistance to change? With that in mind, doesn't the answer "wear a mask (accept change)" or "Don't wear a mask(reject change)" become more clear?
That goes in hand with something conservatives often express, an almost deathly fear of doing something that someone else told them to do. Like it's a sign of weakness to listen to other people. Literally anything people tell them to do is taken as a challenge, rather than advice, and that if they fail the challenge then the itchy red blanket of communism will swallow the world whole. So when everyone is told they need to wear a mask, it's just another challenge. In a sadly predictive bout of reverse psychology, they will stubbornly look for any way not to wear one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
