|
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 July 23 2018 21:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
GH, it really does seem like you're trying to dismiss or dodge several good points in bad faith. I'm curious as to why it's so important to not agree with JimmiC's measurable evidences; it's not like a concession here would slippery slope to "...and therefore, blacks are treated perfectly equally to whites and fairly and equitably across our society, we're post-racism, etc." They aren't good points, and I was hoping people recognized them for what they were. Since it appears they didn't I suppose I'll indulge Jimmi's post. On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:21 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:10 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Seriously... In "measurable improvements for Black people relative to white people" you just unironically went with "you got a president!"...
I know this is ignorance and not racism but damn.
Clearly their are lots of measures. So i just went with the most obvious. Instead of researching a bunch up and you claim its propaganda. How about you prove your claim instead of having others disprove it Someone help him please? You claim it's clearly obvious there are many measurable improvements, either you can show them or you're just assuming without having previously done the research. As you've demonstrated, you're pulling that assertion out of your arse. The American south has started allowing black people to vote. That’s not nothing. Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well. Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Here's the title of the article you pulled it from (I know why you didn't link it now) Black Americans mostly left behind by progress since Dr. King’s death Without statistics on white people this point is meaningless for the question asked. But according to the census the percentage gap between white and Black college completion has gone from ~4% less Black graduates to ~20% less Black graduates. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Besides not really being something to be celebrated (as phrased) segregation is on the rise: American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says Hillary ClintonBlack adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. We can see that overall the gap has not significantly changed at all: ![[image loading]](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/ST_2016.06.27_race-inequality-ch1-03-2.png) In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. It should be very obvious why this is a piss poor metric, and I already hinted at it, but to be more clear this would have Black people celebrating Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Allen West and so on. That's obviously stupid. So no I won't take black people helping white people oppress black people as "a measurable improvement". Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) Go ahead and pull up a statistic so we can understand what it is your specifically saying is the measurable improvement. There's a lot of reasons people don't like discussing things with me, but having their argument challenged instead of swallowed whole without support shouldn't be one of them. \ Yes you got the article right, not a hard find? I would have posted it but it was more fun to have you instantly insult it and me before you realizing that it was actually attempting to prove your (what should be your point) that things have not came as far as they should have but have come forward in some ways. https://theconversation.com/black-americans-mostly-left-behind-by-progress-since-dr-kings-death-89956https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists This way the author does not sound like a crazy person it is no better. This one is particularly good, but in a lot of the reading I did the theme of single parent homes lead by mothers being the poorest kept coming up.And how black families have a disproportionate amount of families lead by single mothers. Which leads to the Gap between men and women. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility/If you make your points less Hyperbolic, people will take more time to listen. Obviously the world is different now then the 60's. It takes watching a few movies, or TV shows or anything to show that. Interracial marriage and sex is now legal and in many districts not even frowned upon. This was not the case. There was no black leads, heck even Blackexplotation films were not in full swing in the 60's. Things have changed for the better in a lot of ways, but not as much as they could have or should have.
No one is asking "have things changed"... so did you have measurable improvements you wanted to highlight from any of that or did you want to point to more black people on TV and the tired republican trope of single parent families (as if Democrats support of the war on drugs isn't directly related anyway) and call that "more reasonable".
All the while not addressing the refutations of your previous assertions?
|
On July 23 2018 22:23 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2018 21:54 Artisreal wrote:
should blacks / trans / bi people be happy that they are less unequal than 60 years ago?
Is that the condensed message you're trying to send?
e: it's totally possible that I'm misreading some posts. The above is not meant to sound rude. There is a lot of room for more improvement and we should not stop trying to improve their situation. The point is that blowing everything up for the (very) slim chance that what comes after will be better is not productive. There is not a lot more room for improvement under liberalism. There are a few more things that we can do, like say, anonymous CVs and things like that, but other than that most of the stuff we can improve while following liberal principles has already been done. This seems like an odd claim to make, what's your definition of liberal? I'd say that extremely high estate taxes, progressive income tax, financial industry regulations, single-payer healthcare, and carbon taxes (to name a few) are all liberal policies which would cause significant improvements over the status quo.
Liberalism can cover a wide array of views as you know, but mainly it's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Doesn't question the general order of society in terms of class, is there to support capitalism, loves free markets... In theory it works when everyone is given an equal chance to succeed and the people who are the most deserving emerge on top over the people who are less deserving.
Your propositions are good but are not compatible with main liberal economic principles, especially not under neoliberalism where the emphasis on free markets and privatization is greater. The adoption of more government regulations of the economy will be done in spite of liberal principles, not through them.
|
On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative.
It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted.
|
On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted.
Liberal/neoliberal are words with meanings, even if those for which they apply are having a hard time dealing with that (mostly because there are some particularly bad parts of it). Whether individual people's totality of views can be accurately encompassed with a single term like "liberal" has the kind of wiggle room you're trying to describe.
|
On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted.
Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative.
|
|
|
On July 23 2018 22:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:23 Mercy13 wrote:On July 23 2018 22:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2018 21:54 Artisreal wrote:
should blacks / trans / bi people be happy that they are less unequal than 60 years ago?
Is that the condensed message you're trying to send?
e: it's totally possible that I'm misreading some posts. The above is not meant to sound rude. There is a lot of room for more improvement and we should not stop trying to improve their situation. The point is that blowing everything up for the (very) slim chance that what comes after will be better is not productive. There is not a lot more room for improvement under liberalism. There are a few more things that we can do, like say, anonymous CVs and things like that, but other than that most of the stuff we can improve while following liberal principles has already been done. This seems like an odd claim to make, what's your definition of liberal? I'd say that extremely high estate taxes, progressive income tax, financial industry regulations, single-payer healthcare, and carbon taxes (to name a few) are all liberal policies which would cause significant improvements over the status quo. Liberalism can cover a wide array of views as you know, but mainly it's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Doesn't question the general order of society in terms of class, is there to support capitalism, loves free markets... In theory it works when everyone is given an equal chance to succeed and the people who are the most deserving emerge on top over the people who are less deserving. Your propositions are good but are not compatible with main liberal economic principles, especially not under neoliberalism where the emphasis on free markets and privatization is greater. The adoption of more government regulations of the economy will be done in spite of liberal principles, not through them.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'd call that a libertarian viewpoint rather than a liberal one, but I agree it's bad ideology. To avoid confusing us Americans you might want to use "classical liberal" or "libertarian" instead of liberal : )
|
On July 23 2018 22:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 21:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
GH, it really does seem like you're trying to dismiss or dodge several good points in bad faith. I'm curious as to why it's so important to not agree with JimmiC's measurable evidences; it's not like a concession here would slippery slope to "...and therefore, blacks are treated perfectly equally to whites and fairly and equitably across our society, we're post-racism, etc." They aren't good points, and I was hoping people recognized them for what they were. Since it appears they didn't I suppose I'll indulge Jimmi's post. On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:21 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Someone help him please?
You claim it's clearly obvious there are many measurable improvements, either you can show them or you're just assuming without having previously done the research. As you've demonstrated, you're pulling that assertion out of your arse. The American south has started allowing black people to vote. That’s not nothing. Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well. Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Here's the title of the article you pulled it from (I know why you didn't link it now) Black Americans mostly left behind by progress since Dr. King’s death Without statistics on white people this point is meaningless for the question asked. But according to the census the percentage gap between white and Black college completion has gone from ~4% less Black graduates to ~20% less Black graduates. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Besides not really being something to be celebrated (as phrased) segregation is on the rise: American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says Hillary ClintonBlack adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. We can see that overall the gap has not significantly changed at all: In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. It should be very obvious why this is a piss poor metric, and I already hinted at it, but to be more clear this would have Black people celebrating Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Allen West and so on. That's obviously stupid. So no I won't take black people helping white people oppress black people as "a measurable improvement". Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) Go ahead and pull up a statistic so we can understand what it is your specifically saying is the measurable improvement. There's a lot of reasons people don't like discussing things with me, but having their argument challenged instead of swallowed whole without support shouldn't be one of them. \ Yes you got the article right, not a hard find? I would have posted it but it was more fun to have you instantly insult it and me before you realizing that it was actually attempting to prove your (what should be your point) that things have not came as far as they should have but have come forward in some ways. https://theconversation.com/black-americans-mostly-left-behind-by-progress-since-dr-kings-death-89956https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists This way the author does not sound like a crazy person it is no better. This one is particularly good, but in a lot of the reading I did the theme of single parent homes lead by mothers being the poorest kept coming up.And how black families have a disproportionate amount of families lead by single mothers. Which leads to the Gap between men and women. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility/If you make your points less Hyperbolic, people will take more time to listen. Obviously the world is different now then the 60's. It takes watching a few movies, or TV shows or anything to show that. Interracial marriage and sex is now legal and in many districts not even frowned upon. This was not the case. There was no black leads, heck even Blackexplotation films were not in full swing in the 60's. Things have changed for the better in a lot of ways, but not as much as they could have or should have. No one is asking "have things changed"... so did you have measurable improvements you wanted to highlight from any of that or did you want to point to more black people on TV and the tired republican trope of single parent families (as if Democrats support of the war on drugs isn't directly related anyway) and call that "more reasonable". All the while not addressing the refutations of your previous assertions? I already showed measurable change. And linked the article they came from and everyone but you seems to think they are pretty legit. I am pointing out how obvious it is in TV and movies, but I'm sure I could look up the stats for oscars won, or leads by black, or TV shows with Black casts, writers, directors and so on. But then, as you do, you would claim it makes no difference, or was propaganda or whatever. So what would the point be?
Alright, so that's a no on any additional measurable improvements you wanted to highlight, and no response to the refutations of both the substance or significance of your supposed "measurable improvements". Other than to double down on what was clearly (though statistically common) profound misperception of and unfounded optimism regarding racial equality.
Your argument is pretty garbage sorry to say.
|
On July 23 2018 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted. Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative.
Or they don’t ascribe the same values to liberalism that you do. Being Very Liberal and Socialist are seen as close in the political spectrum to a lot of people in the US. Or liberal is seen a synonymous with women’s rights to a lot of women in the US.
|
On July 23 2018 22:46 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:39 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:23 Mercy13 wrote:On July 23 2018 22:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:02 Gorsameth wrote:On July 23 2018 21:54 Artisreal wrote:
should blacks / trans / bi people be happy that they are less unequal than 60 years ago?
Is that the condensed message you're trying to send?
e: it's totally possible that I'm misreading some posts. The above is not meant to sound rude. There is a lot of room for more improvement and we should not stop trying to improve their situation. The point is that blowing everything up for the (very) slim chance that what comes after will be better is not productive. There is not a lot more room for improvement under liberalism. There are a few more things that we can do, like say, anonymous CVs and things like that, but other than that most of the stuff we can improve while following liberal principles has already been done. This seems like an odd claim to make, what's your definition of liberal? I'd say that extremely high estate taxes, progressive income tax, financial industry regulations, single-payer healthcare, and carbon taxes (to name a few) are all liberal policies which would cause significant improvements over the status quo. Liberalism can cover a wide array of views as you know, but mainly it's socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Doesn't question the general order of society in terms of class, is there to support capitalism, loves free markets... In theory it works when everyone is given an equal chance to succeed and the people who are the most deserving emerge on top over the people who are less deserving. Your propositions are good but are not compatible with main liberal economic principles, especially not under neoliberalism where the emphasis on free markets and privatization is greater. The adoption of more government regulations of the economy will be done in spite of liberal principles, not through them. Thanks for clearing that up. I'd call that a libertarian viewpoint rather than a liberal one, but I agree it's bad ideology. To avoid confusing us Americans you might want to use "classical liberal" or "libertarian" instead of liberal : )
Libertarianism is also a liberal economic philosophy. As far as I can tell it's a more extreme form. I've been known to question its honesty in general cause I don't see how true libertarians could share a party with conservatives, but what do I know.
|
On July 23 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted. Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative. Or they don’t ascribe the same values to liberalism that you do. Being Very Liberal and Socialist are seen as close in the political spectrum to a lot of people in the US. Or liberal is seen a synonymous with women’s rights to a lot of women in the US.
You could be a socialist and be socially conservative, so the idea that being very liberal and being socialist are close, while true in the US, is illogical.
|
On another topic, the details regarding Carter Page's FISA warrant have been released. And they confirm what a lot of folks in this thread knew already, Carter Page is both an idiot and has been waving a flag over his head asking the FBI to investigate him since the year of our lord, 2013. And, of course, he is doing the talk show rounds now because he is a staggering moron.
|
On July 23 2018 22:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted. Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative. Or they don’t ascribe the same values to liberalism that you do. Being Very Liberal and Socialist are seen as close in the political spectrum to a lot of people in the US. Or liberal is seen a synonymous with women’s rights to a lot of women in the US. You could be a socialist and be socially conservative, so the idea that being very liberal and being socialist are close, while true in the US, is illogical.
I’ve worked for some old guard democrats who worked on women’s rights issues in my state. You are not going to convince them that they are not the liberalism and socialism are that far apart, logical metrics be damned. This is the problem when the debate revolves around mercurial words like liberal and progressive.
|
On July 23 2018 23:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:55 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted. Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative. Or they don’t ascribe the same values to liberalism that you do. Being Very Liberal and Socialist are seen as close in the political spectrum to a lot of people in the US. Or liberal is seen a synonymous with women’s rights to a lot of women in the US. You could be a socialist and be socially conservative, so the idea that being very liberal and being socialist are close, while true in the US, is illogical. I’ve worked for some old guard democrats who worked on women’s rights issues in my state. You are not going to convince them that they are not the liberalism and socialism are that far apart, logical metrics be damned. This is the problem when the debate revolves around mercurial words like liberal and progressive.
And my father works with a social worker who is a clear socialist, progressive tax reform, redistribution and all, possibly revolution if needed, but thinks the MeToo movement is going to cause a ton of injustice because women lie about being raped all the time, and thinks Weinstein was unfairly treated. Again, honest people have complexity within their views, they don't believe something because it's liberal or because it's conservative. That doesn't change whether socialism or progressivism is compatible with liberalism.
|
On July 23 2018 18:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 17:57 iamthedave wrote:On July 23 2018 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 10:20 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The American south has started allowing black people to vote. That’s not nothing. Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well. Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Black adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) I mean it was a pretty low bar from the 60's to now. I bet many older black people would be super offended that you think it as bad now. surely you pulled those numbers from somewhere so a link would be appreciated and I'll take a look. I think you may want to take a closer look at some of those segregation numbers as well. Also remember, the request was for "measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's". EDIT: In a bit of a rush and I didn't get to the rest. You may not be aware but representation =/= improvement by nature of shared assigned categories. There were Jewish Nazi's for example. That's not to equate Black representation to Nazi's or anything, but to say that being something doesn't mean you can't perpetuate the most horrific crimes against that group. + Show Spoiler +I'll show you mine, when you show me yours. Otherwise we just go through the same old song and dance. Show me how it has not changed. Prove your assertion.
Otherwise its:
GH 'This is how it is"
Other "No it isn't"
GH "Prove it"
Other "Ok here...."
GH " That all right wing propaganda"
OR
Other "This is how it is"
GH "Sure, Prove it"
Other " OK here....."
GH " That is all right wing propaganda"
So basically anything say everyone needs to simply trust as fact, even though you won't say where you get your news or ever back it up. But any little or big thing another says you need a multi sourced essay of doctoral level to even consider it (this is a joke, you just never consider others points at all).
I wanted to address this part too by pointing to a more traditional measure of success in a capitalistic society, wealth: ![[image loading]](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/12/FT_14.12.11_wealthGap2.png) And for some more historical context, In South Africa, during the atrocities of apartheid, the median black family held about 7 percent of typical white South African family net worth. Today, using Wolff’s analysis, the median African American family holds a mere 1.5 percent of median white American family wealth.Brief explanation of the difference between the two different measures of wealth inequality: New York University Professor Edward Wolff, one of the foremost economists studying wealth inequality, looks at the same Federal Reserve dataset that the Pew researchers used in a recent report he published in the National Bureau of Economic Research (paywall). Wolff points out that the Fed includes consumer durables in its net-worth estimates.
Wolff excludes these consumer durables from his net-worth figures because these assets — everything from automobiles and televisions to furniture and household appliances — cannot be readily converted to cash and their resale value typically far understates their consumption value.
According to Wolff’s calculations, the median black family is actually only worth $1,700 when you deduct these durables. In contrast, the median white family holds $116,800 of wealth using the same accounting methods. Black household wealth, Wolff adds, actually fell during the Great Recession from $6,700 to $1,700. EDIT: May seem like I'm picking on Jimmi so to be fair, this is kinda a thing. Americans, and higher-income whites in particular, vastly overestimate progress toward economic equality between blacks and whites, the psychologists reported Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Americans believe that blacks and whites are more equal today than they truly are on measures of income, wealth, wages and health benefits. And they believe more historical progress has occurred than is the case, suggesting “a profound misperception of and unfounded optimism” regarding racial equality.
“It seems that we’ve convinced ourselves – and by ‘we’ I mean Americans writ large – that racial discrimination is a thing of the past,” said Jennifer Richeson, who was another of the study’s authors, along with Julian Rucker, a doctoral student. “We’ve literally overcome it, so to speak, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.” www.nytimes.com You've shifted the goal posts rather than concede a point your own graphs have demonstrated to be true. No, you've demonstrated you didn't follow the discussion. Show nested quote +He wasn't talking about wealth inequality. He said black households make more money. In other words, a measurable improvement from the 60s. The rise of a black middle class, etc. The quote* he pulled from an article about how Black people were left out of progress since the 60's, was only a part of the picture. Which is why I explained how it wasn't a "measurable improvement for Black people relative to white people", which is what I asked for. Show nested quote +Pivoting onto your usual talking points doesn't distract from the fact you did the pivot. Racial wealth inequality is not one of my usual talking points, not that it invalidates it if it was. Show nested quote +Also, I'm relatively confident that African Americans benefit from access to abortion the same as anyone else, and the potential loss of it under Trump is likely to hit African Americans harder than it will whites. So there's a measurable way things would be better under Clinton. This has nothing to do with the points being made.
This is what he said: "Black adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class."
You babbled on about the inequality gap in an attempt to ignore what he said rather than directly countering his point.
And you talking to anyone about 'not following the discussion' is hilarious. Half the time it's like you're talking to a brick wall and the rest of us are just watching.
|
On July 23 2018 23:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 23:04 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:55 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted. Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative. Or they don’t ascribe the same values to liberalism that you do. Being Very Liberal and Socialist are seen as close in the political spectrum to a lot of people in the US. Or liberal is seen a synonymous with women’s rights to a lot of women in the US. You could be a socialist and be socially conservative, so the idea that being very liberal and being socialist are close, while true in the US, is illogical. I’ve worked for some old guard democrats who worked on women’s rights issues in my state. You are not going to convince them that they are not the liberalism and socialism are that far apart, logical metrics be damned. This is the problem when the debate revolves around mercurial words like liberal and progressive. And my father works with a social worker who is a clear socialist, progressive tax reform, redistribution and all, possibly revolution if needed, but thinks the MeToo movement is going to cause a ton of injustice because women lie about being raped all the time, and thinks Weinstein was unfairly treated. Again, honest people have complexity within their views, they don't believe something because it's liberal or because it's conservative. That doesn't change whether socialism is compatible with liberalism.
In the academic sense, I agree. But I cannot use my academic/professional vernacular to discuss history, education or law with the average person. So I don’t believe it is productive to rely on those strict, academic definitions in the average political discussion unless we are clear about it. It leads to unnecessary confrontations about definitions.
|
On July 23 2018 23:15 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 18:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 17:57 iamthedave wrote:On July 23 2018 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 10:20 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well.
Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Black adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) I mean it was a pretty low bar from the 60's to now. I bet many older black people would be super offended that you think it as bad now. surely you pulled those numbers from somewhere so a link would be appreciated and I'll take a look. I think you may want to take a closer look at some of those segregation numbers as well. Also remember, the request was for "measurable ways has the gap between white and Black people closed since the 60's". EDIT: In a bit of a rush and I didn't get to the rest. You may not be aware but representation =/= improvement by nature of shared assigned categories. There were Jewish Nazi's for example. That's not to equate Black representation to Nazi's or anything, but to say that being something doesn't mean you can't perpetuate the most horrific crimes against that group. + Show Spoiler +I'll show you mine, when you show me yours. Otherwise we just go through the same old song and dance. Show me how it has not changed. Prove your assertion.
Otherwise its:
GH 'This is how it is"
Other "No it isn't"
GH "Prove it"
Other "Ok here...."
GH " That all right wing propaganda"
OR
Other "This is how it is"
GH "Sure, Prove it"
Other " OK here....."
GH " That is all right wing propaganda"
So basically anything say everyone needs to simply trust as fact, even though you won't say where you get your news or ever back it up. But any little or big thing another says you need a multi sourced essay of doctoral level to even consider it (this is a joke, you just never consider others points at all).
I wanted to address this part too by pointing to a more traditional measure of success in a capitalistic society, wealth: And for some more historical context, In South Africa, during the atrocities of apartheid, the median black family held about 7 percent of typical white South African family net worth. Today, using Wolff’s analysis, the median African American family holds a mere 1.5 percent of median white American family wealth.Brief explanation of the difference between the two different measures of wealth inequality: New York University Professor Edward Wolff, one of the foremost economists studying wealth inequality, looks at the same Federal Reserve dataset that the Pew researchers used in a recent report he published in the National Bureau of Economic Research (paywall). Wolff points out that the Fed includes consumer durables in its net-worth estimates.
Wolff excludes these consumer durables from his net-worth figures because these assets — everything from automobiles and televisions to furniture and household appliances — cannot be readily converted to cash and their resale value typically far understates their consumption value.
According to Wolff’s calculations, the median black family is actually only worth $1,700 when you deduct these durables. In contrast, the median white family holds $116,800 of wealth using the same accounting methods. Black household wealth, Wolff adds, actually fell during the Great Recession from $6,700 to $1,700. EDIT: May seem like I'm picking on Jimmi so to be fair, this is kinda a thing. Americans, and higher-income whites in particular, vastly overestimate progress toward economic equality between blacks and whites, the psychologists reported Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Americans believe that blacks and whites are more equal today than they truly are on measures of income, wealth, wages and health benefits. And they believe more historical progress has occurred than is the case, suggesting “a profound misperception of and unfounded optimism” regarding racial equality.
“It seems that we’ve convinced ourselves – and by ‘we’ I mean Americans writ large – that racial discrimination is a thing of the past,” said Jennifer Richeson, who was another of the study’s authors, along with Julian Rucker, a doctoral student. “We’ve literally overcome it, so to speak, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.” www.nytimes.com You've shifted the goal posts rather than concede a point your own graphs have demonstrated to be true. No, you've demonstrated you didn't follow the discussion. He wasn't talking about wealth inequality. He said black households make more money. In other words, a measurable improvement from the 60s. The rise of a black middle class, etc. The quote* he pulled from an article about how Black people were left out of progress since the 60's, was only a part of the picture. Which is why I explained how it wasn't a "measurable improvement for Black people relative to white people", which is what I asked for. Pivoting onto your usual talking points doesn't distract from the fact you did the pivot. Racial wealth inequality is not one of my usual talking points, not that it invalidates it if it was. Also, I'm relatively confident that African Americans benefit from access to abortion the same as anyone else, and the potential loss of it under Trump is likely to hit African Americans harder than it will whites. So there's a measurable way things would be better under Clinton. This has nothing to do with the points being made. This is what he said: "Black adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class." You babbled on about the inequality gap in an attempt to ignore what he said rather than directly countering his point. And you talking to anyone about 'not following the discussion' is hilarious. Half the time it's like you're talking to a brick wall and the rest of us are just watching.
And you did it again. Try actually reading the post where I addressed it, I linked it to you in that one. Then get back to me.
|
Norway28910 Posts
liberal means different things in europe and in the US. In a way, they mean they same, it's just that they're different ends of the political spectrum because the two centers are so different.
I mean, it basically means some version of 'free' or 'unrestricted'. In social questions (permitting use of drugs, gay rights, abortion rights etc), this corresponds with the political left, because the political left traditionally wants less restrictions on these matters. In economical terms, it corresponds with the political right, as the left wants more restrictions on how the economy is organized.
Then when speaking of economic policy in the US, the political left traditionally hasn't really differed that much from the political right in the US (I mean yea there's some slight difference in taxation policy and the democrat fringe differs greatly from the republican fringe, but up until a couple years ago, mainstream democrats and mainstream republicans weren't all that significantly different in terms of economic policy) - both parties have been economically liberal - so in the US, it has become a description of 'someone who is socially liberal' - that is, a leftist. (libertarians aren't a big enough group to influence mainstream language).
In Europe however, we've had a wider spread of political parties with parliamentary representation and influence, and some of these parties end up being liberal in both senses of the word - they're socially liberal even by european standards, and definitely economically liberal by european standards. But these parties are not considered leftist parties in Europe, more like center-right, because the economic policy is a bigger divider than social policy is.
|
GH -- What do you think about what the ANC has been doing in South Africa over the past few years?
|
On July 23 2018 23:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 23:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 23:04 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:55 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:50 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 23 2018 22:40 Plansix wrote:On July 23 2018 22:33 Gahlo wrote:
I've heard people define Liberal policy as socially progressive and economically conservative. It is a bit of a rorschach test. It means what people want it to mean. People and the spectrum of their political views are not so easily sorted. Of course not, because typically honest people don't follow a textbook for their views. They like what they like, they don't care about whether it's called liberal or socialist or conservative. Or they don’t ascribe the same values to liberalism that you do. Being Very Liberal and Socialist are seen as close in the political spectrum to a lot of people in the US. Or liberal is seen a synonymous with women’s rights to a lot of women in the US. You could be a socialist and be socially conservative, so the idea that being very liberal and being socialist are close, while true in the US, is illogical. I’ve worked for some old guard democrats who worked on women’s rights issues in my state. You are not going to convince them that they are not the liberalism and socialism are that far apart, logical metrics be damned. This is the problem when the debate revolves around mercurial words like liberal and progressive. And my father works with a social worker who is a clear socialist, progressive tax reform, redistribution and all, possibly revolution if needed, but thinks the MeToo movement is going to cause a ton of injustice because women lie about being raped all the time, and thinks Weinstein was unfairly treated. Again, honest people have complexity within their views, they don't believe something because it's liberal or because it's conservative. That doesn't change whether socialism is compatible with liberalism. In the academic sense, I agree. But I cannot use my academic/professional vernacular to discuss history, education or law with the average person. So I don’t believe it is productive to rely on those strict, academic definitions in the average political discussion unless we are clear about it. It leads to unnecessary confrontations about definitions.
I don't think I really disagree in general, but I think in this conversation it's quite important. Again, because you're fairly close to the point where in order to score more progressive victories in the US, you're going to have to go against economic liberalism. And what will happen then (or now) is that the liberals will focus on what was obtained so far and emphasize the danger of losing that progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
