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.
Good thing for Putin, since Trump just cut all the help for Ukraine.
Also good thing for Netanyahu, since Trump suggest to "clear out the thing" .. talking about Gaza.. and rebuild housing in other countries.
It is increasingly clear that the US has no interest in being a modern democracy. How are vote tallies secret for at least a year after the election? The only countries I can think of that do that are (a) banana republics or (b) dictatorships masquerading as democracies (Russia, Venezuela, ...)
The US may have had a forward thinking constitution in the 18th century, but its core structure remains untouched since and is now incredibly outdated. It is time to throw it in the trash and start again.
Basicly power-people have found weak spots in the legislature, and will continue to beat the drump on "Traditions" so nobody can fix the holes.
Trump’s Second Inauguration Week Lowlights – One lowlight per day
Monday (Inauguration Day, 1/20/25): Defending MAGA Nazis [1]; Tuesday: Pardoning violent insurrectionists [2]; Wednesday: Removing civil rights [3]; Thursday: Destroying the economy and raising inflation rates [4]; Friday: Eliminating FEMA and natural disaster aid as climate change worsens [5]; Saturday: Moving all Palestinians out of Gaza [6]; Bonus: Firing non-partisan experts who monitor federal agencies [7].
[1] Monday (Inauguration Day): On the very first day, we’re reminded of Trump’s fascism. While giving a speech in support of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Elon Musk performed multiple Nazi salutes in solidarity with the new president. Trump’s MAGA cult tried to blame Elon Musk’s autism, but Trump had been receiving overwhelming support from American neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists for over a decade. This is consistent with the facts that Vice President JD Vance has referred to President Trump as “America’s Hitler”, members of Trump’s first administration have called Trump a fascist and an authoritarian, Trump himself has admitted that he wants to be a dictator, and Trump had been caught repeatedly trying to steal the 2020 presidential election after losing to Joe Biden. Musk’s Nazi salutes: and https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i6v521/for_those_not_convinced_heres_proof_from_a_neonazi/#lightbox
[2] Tuesday: Donald Trump pardoned over 1,500 MAGA insurrectionists who were charged with various crimes – including some already convicted of violently attacking police officers – when they stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021, during the election certification process. At the time, they had been mobilized by Donald Trump and were led to believe that their violent riot could help Donald Trump keep control of the presidency, despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/g-s1-36809/trump-pardons-january-6-riot
[3] Wednesday: Donald Trump decided to push his bigoted agenda a little bit further, by rescinding a guard rail that protected against discriminatory employment practices. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 in 1965, which "prohibited federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year, from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246. That's gone now - Trump is chipping away at civil rights, little by little - though fortunately there are still other rules and laws in place to protect employees from discrimination. Hopefully, Trump and his Republican Congress don't have a chance to repeal all of them.
[4] Thursday: Trump accidentally promised to raise inflation rates, after Biden just spent years getting inflation under control, all because Trump doesn't understand how inflation rates and interest rates and the general economy work. His insistence on artificially lowering interest rates – something he just explicitly announced he would do – would copy a mistake that Richard Nixon made while in office, which ended up raising inflation rates: “Critics of an expanded role for the president point to a bout of high inflation in the 1970s and 1980s. Before the inflation took hold, President Richard Nixon had urged Fed Chair Arthur Burns to cut [interest] rates in the run-up to the 1972 presidential election. Nixon's advocacy is widely viewed as a contributing factor for lower-than-necessary interest rates that enabled inflation to get out of control, some economists noted.” https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trump-demand-lower-interest-rates/story?id=118025230
[5] Friday: Trump said that he is considering the elimination of FEMA, and he said that emergency relief should only be provided by the individual states affected by each natural disaster. ""I'll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA," Trump told reporters in North Carolina on Friday morning. "I think, frankly, FEMA is not good. ... I’d like to see the states take care of disasters, let the state take care of the tornadoes and the hurricanes and all of the other things that happen."" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fema-not-good-trump-announces-agency-overhaul-during-visit-north-carolina It should be noted that Florida, Louisiana, and Texas receive significantly more FEMA aid than any other state ( https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fema-red-state-recipients-2019816 ). As with all federal programs, the blue states tend to give more financial support and the red states tend to receive more welfare.
[6] Saturday: Trump has now decided to push for a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, where all Palestinians in Gaza are removed from their homes and relocated to other countries, while Israel completely takes over: ““You’re talking about a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,” Trump said.” https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/25/politics/trump-gaza-strip-jordan-egypt/index.html This comes right after the Biden administration secured a crucial ceasefire between Israeli authorities and Hamas, including a release of hostages on both sides of the war – which even included Trump in the conversation, so that the transition from Biden to Trump would hopefully be smooth and fair to all parties involved in the Middle East. Obviously, Trump’s new one-sided stance is now seen as a complete reversal and betrayal of the two-state agreement that was established earlier this month, and it permits Netanyahu to continue dominating the region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Israel–Hamas_war_ceasefire
[7] Bonus: Trump secretly fired at least 17 independent watchdogs of federal agencies, without giving Congress the required one-month notice or any official explanation for why the inspectors general were removed. Their jobs are to monitor parts of the government to make sure that everything is running smoothly, ethically, and legally; given Trump’s Project 2025 promise of replacing non-partisan experts with MAGA sycophants who will do anything Trump says, this isn’t surprising. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-fires-17-independent-watchdogs-multiple-agencies-late/story?id=118097873
On January 25 2025 21:51 Sadist wrote: Oblade why do you say FEMA is incompetent and sucks? Can you provide some more detail?
They blocked and slowed direct aid and charity in NC. They blocked prefab homes sent to house victims. They funneled billions to housing illegals. They were still housing people in tents until the new administration. They had no hurricane or fire preparation or fire prevention. California drained their reservoir and fired elite firefighters, and FEMA was picking up no slack, nor giving them any pressure like "hey don't do that in an extremely dry tinderbox situation." People with insurance aren't eligible for immediate aid, yet they also can't get anything from their insurance.
If a supposed basic part of government like this only works when one party is in charge, it's not a functioning part of government. FEMA isn't even that. They did the exact same things in Katrina under Bush. Blocked aid, blocked volunteers, had no idea what the fuck was going on and failed to meet basic standards of responsibility for being the federal emergency agency that's supposed to be the crack team cavalry that comes in and gets things moving.
On January 26 2025 07:58 BlackJack wrote: Is that supposed to be your argument for why we should reject the mean to focus instead on the biggest outlier? For a seemingly intelligent person the amount of nonsense you post is a statistical outlier.
Statistics are not your strong suit, I know. That "25% outlier" is only the biggest portion of the 9%. It's an entire industry that discriminates 25% against a black sounding name.
25% is not the "biggest portion," that's not correct. When you have an average, some things will be higher than average and some will be lower. What the "biggest portion" is depends on how the things are distributed. Generally things are distributed with one mode, which is what you'd expect in a non-racist jobs market. A two-way racist, segregated hiring market would have bimodal callbacks, with some companies calling back "black" names wildly above average, and others wildly below average. And the same thing happening to white names.
The stupidest premise of these entire black vs. white resume experiments is the racialist presumption that the white rate is the norm to begin with. Why are we measuring white/black only except to find a little bit of evidence for a foregone conclusion? Everything is assumed, no factors are controlled for, and only one thing is measured.
They could both actually be below average. They could both actually be above average as we find every firm shitting on Hispanics. Or they might not be. No effort spent by the authors to investigate the possibility or even to explain their rationale for ignoring these obvious questions. But okay, leaving that aside.
I would feel bad for apparently well-meaning people getting sucked into vast conclusions from the tiny little data of these studies, if it weren't for the absolute confidence and arrogance with which the vast conclusions are purported to be proved.
What's the callbacks of identical resumes/applications with an Asian name? How does the identical application stack up against each social construct's pool of resumes? Is it better than 50% of blacks but 80% of whites?
What's the rate of passing the next interview step? What's the offer rate? What's the chance of getting hired? Would BlackJack rather have 50 callbacks and an 80% chance to get hired or 55 and a 60% chance to get hired? Would WhiteJack? Did we do a parallel survey asking people blind if they had enough opportunities or not?
A "distinctively" white (90%+ white/10% other incidence) name got 9% more callbacks than a "distinctively" black (10% other/90%+ black) name? Fine. What's the relative incidence of those names? "Mohammed" is "distinctively" Arab. "Ambrose" is "distinctively" white. They are not analogues as anyone can see when you consider if you've ever met someone named Mohammed vs. named Ambrose. Their "white" last names have a MUCH higher share than their "black" last names, p.89.
These confounding factors are important. What about less racially polarized names? Do 60/40 names also get more calls than 40/60? Because if 10/90 gets fewer callbacks but 40/60 gets more callbacks, then we might have to use our brains and question our assumptions. But if we just stop here, after we have the assumptions we like, and we set out wanting, we can keep them forever.
There are two examples of actual resumes from their random resume generator, p.71. But it's very easily to illustrate why the whole idea of name-swapping may be bullshit to begin with. Does anyone expect these two to get identical interest, or callbacks, from living human beings:
Education: B.A. in East Asian Studies, University of Chicago Studied Abroad: Tsinghua University, Beijing Professional Experience: Research Assistant, China Studies Center (2 years) Volunteer, International Rescue Committee (IRC) Language Skills: Intermediate Mandarin (HSK Level 4) Hobbies & Interests: Shaolin Kung Fu (2nd degree) Violin and Flute Medaled in several amateur archery competitions
Zhao Long
Education: B.A. in East Asian Studies, University of Chicago Studied Abroad: Tsinghua University, Beijing Professional Experience: Research Assistant, China Studies Center (2 years) Volunteer, International Rescue Committee (IRC) Language Skills: Intermediate Mandarin (HSK Level 4) Hobbies & Interests: Shaolin Kung Fu (2nd degree) Violin and Flute Medaled in several amateur archery competitions
Now repeat that 50k times. Is one not getting more callbacks? If there's any hidden effect like that whatsoever in what they assume are race-neutral plain resumes... That's just food for thought though. The real problem is different.
The biggest reason to throw the whole thing out is they flooded the pool with 50/50 black/white resumes when neither the population nor applicant pool are 50/50. But women and men are 50/50 and they found no significant male/female gap. Which suggests not that the country is racist but not sexist, but rather that they missed an enormous and basic thing in their methods that it's given me a headache being the only one to read pages and pages of statistical bullshit to see whether I'm right or not whether they accounted for it.
Imagine this. There's a company hiring for a nursing job. They get 80 female and 20 male applicants. They call back 10% (10). What's the non-sexist outcome for this? 5 males and 5 females? Wrong. Then women are 4 times less likely to be "called back." 8 female and 2 male. Sounds good.
Now imagine this. We give them 80 fake male and 20 fake female applicants. This ratio is neither the population demographic (50:50), nor the applicant pool proportion (80:20 in our example, unknown or not disclosed in the white/black study). The pool is now 200. How many of our 80 male and 20 female resumes are they supposed to call in order to not be sexist? Legitimately what's the answer. As the applications come in humans are not going to call them at the same rate. They are going to prune towards 80% female and 20% male, nuking the males, because they know that's the real application rate. Even barring that, if they were fair, they will prune towards 50/50, because they know that's the actual population rate and that would be the most normal, unsexist division that doesn't disadvantage diverse females. Bottom line: If they do any extra pruning or sex conscious behavior at all, they will have rejected our fake male applications in such a way that when we look at it afterwards, appears as though our identically qualified fake people got through at different rates based on the sex of their fake names, and therefore Obama needs to sue the hospital. The experiment, while elaborate and scientific-looking, is fundamentally a farce.
That's the exact same thing they did here. There is some proportion A:B of white:black applicants in the market (which is probably somewhere close to the actual population ratio, but anyways greater than 1). They added 50:50 fake resumes, a 1:1 ratio, which is neither the actual ratio of A:B nor the ratio of white to black people in the population (which is greater than 1). Calling the fake black resumes less often is what you would expect. Just like above, when there are suddenly way more fake male nurse resumes than expected, you wouldn't expect them to get the same rate of callbacks.
You know, I wonder how many actual living breathing people didn't get a call back because HR gave their spot to the "Antwan Smalls" guy instead.
I checked their covariates and they evaluate that demographic composition of the areas where each job is held, in terms of % black, has a between -4% and 4% effect on the gap at 95% confidence. (Which their overall gap of 2.1% falls within.) But they didn't mention, or ignored, or failed to consider, the possibility they have a systemic problem from the get-go by spamming resumes at the wrong proportion, the effect of which only has to be small in order to explain the small difference they found.
Like audit or sue a company if they are wildly out of bounds on one of these "secret shopper" tests using the existing resources and law. Otherwise it's not proof the US is in Jim Crow 2 or any other conspiracy. When you deal with averages, some numbers are higher, and some are lower (Paper admits this also). That's life, it's not the end of the world, you can't legislate everything to be the same, except in communism where everyone gets equally nothing.
On January 26 2025 05:04 KwarK wrote: Oblade declaring that to help black communities we need to support education and “school choice” is pretty silly given “school choice” is the slogan they came up with for “my white child shouldn’t have to go to the same school as all these ‘inner city’ kids”. They’re literally still mad about desegregation.
Hey oBlade, how about instead of shitting up this thread with your nonsense you go and read through the literal mountains of research that exists on the topic to educate yourself before arguing this further? Like, there's basically no credible studies that show, yeah, actually discrimination isn't an issue and there's nothing to worry about. Depending on the study, the target populations, and the methodologies used the exact results vary -- which isn't surprising given that social studies deal with too many variables to produce identical results across differing data sets -- but pretty much all of them agree that yes, discrimination is a real issue, and certain groups have it worse than others. You can argue what's the best solution to dealing with discrimination, that could actually be an interesting conversation to have; but handwaving any and all attempts to reduce it as 'useless DEI' at best, and 'oppression of white people!!!!' at worst is seriously tiresome at this point.
Like, it's easy to nitpick meaningless details and come up with anecdotes going 'nuh huh!' but that really doesn't make an interesting conversation.
@oBlade If you want me to read your response you'll have to size down your comment length by 50-75% Your response (just the part that's addressed at me, and excluding the part in the spoiler) is ~1400 words.
In general most of your posts contain several hundred words and often hit around the 1000 words mark.
I generally write 50-150 words. My longest post recently contains ~500 words. The second longest ~350.
Your posting volume is exhausting. Almost nobody here writes such long comments while also expecting people to respond to them. And it's not like you're one of the more infrequent posters.
I just got a Department of the Navy automated e-mail asking me to complete a "stay" survey, which asks employees about what they like/don't like about their current work situation. Presumably, they do something similar for people who are planning to depart the job, but I don't know the details.
The issue is, anything I put in the survey could theoretically be used against me by Hegseth. However, not completing the survey could also be used against me by Hegseth. This motivates me to just lie and say whatever is the least controversial in the survey. The timing of the survey is perhaps a bit of a problem (I don't think it's being sent out because of the new administration... it's probably longstanding practice).
On January 26 2025 23:14 Magic Powers wrote: @oBlade If you want me to read your response you'll have to size down your comment length by 50-75% Your response (just the part that's addressed at me, and excluding the part in the spoiler) is ~1400 words.
In general most of your posts contain several hundred words and often hit around the 1000 words mark.
I generally write 50-150 words. My longest post recently contains ~500 words. The second longest ~350.
Your posting volume is exhausting. Almost nobody here writes such long comments while also expecting people to respond to them. And it's not like you're one of the more infrequent posters.
Its very easy, the long post starts with previously debunked shit, like the reservoirs were empty, therefor everything else can safely be ignored as just more BS
On January 26 2025 07:58 BlackJack wrote: Is that supposed to be your argument for why we should reject the mean to focus instead on the biggest outlier? For a seemingly intelligent person the amount of nonsense you post is a statistical outlier.
Statistics are not your strong suit, I know. That "25% outlier" is only the biggest portion of the 9%. It's an entire industry that discriminates 25% against a black sounding name. Your terrible understanding of statistics is kinda irrelevant compared to black people facing racism. It's also a great example for why CRT even had an argument to begin with: because you use statistics incorrectly to justify racism.
Actually I have an idea. Lets apply the 25% name discrimination to your name and whichever industry you're working in. We can then see whether or not you'll apologize for that kind of racism.
First of all, no. One company of the many they tested was at 25% by their calculations. The 2 worst scoring were both autoparts stores but there were also other auto parts stores like O'Reilly Auto Parts and AutoZone that were in the middle of the pack so you can't claim the entire industry was at 25%.
Secondly it's still not a very good point to analyze how bad a problem something is generally.
BJ: The infection fatality rate of COVID is <1%. MP: Nice try BJ, but actually over 25% of geriatric, ventilator-dependent, long-term care residents will die if they contract COVID. How would you like it if you were a geriatric, ventilator-dependent, long-term care resident?
All I'm reading is "I know better than the scientific researchers". Not a single valid argument why that research is flawed. Just admit you think you're better than people who study these things for a living.
I didn’t say the research was flawed. I said your conclusion was flawed and that’s a conclusion you drew yourself and not something the researchers said. You just can’t tell the difference between the conclusions the researchers draw and the unsubstantiated ones that you draw.
On January 26 2025 23:46 micronesia wrote: I just got a Department of the Navy automated e-mail asking me to complete a "stay" survey, which asks employees about what they like/don't like about their current work situation. Presumably, they do something similar for people who are planning to depart the job, but I don't know the details.
The issue is, anything I put in the survey could theoretically be used against me by Hegseth. However, not completing the survey could also be used against me by Hegseth. This motivates me to just lie and say whatever is the least controversial in the survey. The timing of the survey is perhaps a bit of a problem (I don't think it's being sent out because of the new administration... it's probably longstanding practice).
Stay surveys have recently been championed as a functioning alternative to those exit interviews where HR asks people what they could've done differently to have kept them and after an awkward silence get told "it wasn't you, it's me. I just needed a change of scenery".
However if your new boss is itching to fire half the government and you don't want to get fired, I would 100% lie on such a survey.
It's unfortunate that attempts to figure out "what can the government do better" are going to be sabotaged by the new administration's laser-focus on making the government better, but not shocking.
On January 26 2025 07:58 BlackJack wrote: Is that supposed to be your argument for why we should reject the mean to focus instead on the biggest outlier? For a seemingly intelligent person the amount of nonsense you post is a statistical outlier.
Statistics are not your strong suit, I know. That "25% outlier" is only the biggest portion of the 9%. It's an entire industry that discriminates 25% against a black sounding name. Your terrible understanding of statistics is kinda irrelevant compared to black people facing racism. It's also a great example for why CRT even had an argument to begin with: because you use statistics incorrectly to justify racism.
Actually I have an idea. Lets apply the 25% name discrimination to your name and whichever industry you're working in. We can then see whether or not you'll apologize for that kind of racism.
First of all, no. One company of the many they tested was at 25% by their calculations. The 2 worst scoring were both autoparts stores but there were also other auto parts stores like O'Reilly Auto Parts and AutoZone that were in the middle of the pack so you can't claim the entire industry was at 25%.
Secondly it's still not a very good point to analyze how bad a problem something is generally.
BJ: The infection fatality rate of COVID is <1%. MP: Nice try BJ, but actually over 25% of geriatric, ventilator-dependent, long-term care residents will die if they contract COVID. How would you like it if you were a geriatric, ventilator-dependent, long-term care resident?
All I'm reading is "I know better than the scientific researchers". Not a single valid argument why that research is flawed. Just admit you think you're better than people who study these things for a living.
I didn’t say the research was flawed. I said your conclusion was flawed and that’s a conclusion you drew yourself and not something the researchers said. You just can’t tell the difference between the conclusions the researchers draw and the unsubstantiated ones that you draw.
The conclusion that discrimination against black names is still happening and still very significant is wrong? Is that what you're arguing?
On January 26 2025 22:29 Salazarz wrote: You can argue what's the best solution to dealing with discrimination, that could actually be an interesting conversation to have; but handwaving any and all attempts to reduce it as 'useless DEI' at best, and 'oppression of white people!!!!' at worst is seriously tiresome at this point.
Shouldn't be tiresome because neither of those are things I've said, you're probably thinking of a conversation you've had with someone else, a strawman, or yourself.
On January 26 2025 22:29 Salazarz wrote: Like, it's easy to nitpick meaningless details and come up with anecdotes going 'nuh huh!' but that really doesn't make an interesting conversation.
By all means steer us to a new source or issue that contains meaningful details, Captain.
On January 26 2025 23:14 Magic Powers wrote: @oBlade If you want me to read your response you'll have to size down your comment length by 50-75% Your response (just the part that's addressed at me, and excluding the part in the spoiler) is ~1400 words.
In general most of your posts contain several hundred words and often hit around the 1000 words mark.
I generally write 50-150 words. My longest post recently contains ~500 words. The second longest ~350.
Your posting volume is exhausting. Almost nobody here writes such long comments while also expecting people to respond to them. And it's not like you're one of the more infrequent posters.
Only one paragraph was addressed to you referring to what a "proportion" is. The rest is breaking down the source that's beenon the table for a couple pages and what we can and can't confidently take away from it. Since you did ask for something abridged, in lieu of you yourself going in and seeing anything that you thought was interesting or wrong and reacting to it or debunking it (which is what you can normally do - if there's not even one single thing that catches your eye that you want to answer, you probably don't need to post like this just to tell me you have nothing to say buddy) - I will choose - try and engage with this one single point, Salazarz didn't have an answer either, to me that's alarming because it's the most obvious level 1 follow-up question, and because I think being hired trumps being called back:
Suppose we grant that certain studies are true at face value, showing there is a callback gap in equivalent/random resumes favoring whites over blacks, whether in certain companies or entire industries. What if they do not have the same chance of being hired per callback? We've already accepted their callbacks depend on their race. How could we presume their chance of being hired per said callback doesn't also? What if their overall chance of being hired remains the same, or favored the black candidate?
These are the range of answers I thought would be possible. Is yours in the vein of one of these, if that helps you out even more? (Spoilered to save space and valuable reading!) 1) No, it's logically impossible that the equivalent black candidate would both have an equal or higher chance to get hired with fewer callbacks. 2) No, I can support with data/evidence that the equivalent candidate has a significantly lower chance to get hired also, not just fewer callbacks, with some other source that was in my background knowledge for longer than 10 seconds ago when I googled it. 3) Oh that's an interesting question, I've used it to expand my horizons. 4) That must be true actually, the equivalent black candidate should have a higher chance to get hired, probably due to the success of DEI initiatives, federal and state law, and policies of Democrat administrations. 5) Other?
@oBlade "How could we presume their chance of being hired per said callback doesn't also? What if their overall chance of being hired remains the same, or favored the black candidate?"
That's an absurd conjecture. There's far too much evidence of racism in America to conclude anything other than a resulting disadvantage for black American workers in various sectors. If you think that's being unreasonable then I wonder how little evidence you've seen in your life of the discrimination black people face in their lives starting already in their early years. They face discrimination almost everywhere. At this point we no longer have to prove that black people are severely disadvantaged, we've long reached the point where we would have to prove that they're being treated equally in any areas of life.
On January 27 2025 04:21 oBlade wrote: You're an Austrian citizen who has lived in Europe your entire life?
Yes I am. I've learned about the topic of racism in America for the last eight years or so, from scientific research and from people's personal accounts and from reports and news. What's your point?
I've been rationalizing my view of the USA for quite a while now, but have never really understood how deeply disturbing the racial issue actually is over there. Then I saw a few clips of "US politics without context" and understood immediately. Now I understand what the hubbub is actually about. But it's still so absurd.
On January 27 2025 04:54 Uldridge wrote: I've been rationalizing my view of the USA for quite a while now, but have never really understood how deeply disturbing the racial issue actually is over there. Then I saw a few clips of "US politics without context" and understood immediately. Now I understand what the hubbub is actually about. But it's still so absurd.
Its worth always keeping in mind we have living people who were alive when segregation was a thing, Civil Rights was in the 60s, Joe Biden wouldve been around ~22 around that time, so not even just born, but born and very much cognizant of and raised within that extremely racist world.
EPT
