Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/20/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    We see a fair bit of this in Alberta, the Texas of the North. I have clients on permanent disability who vote conservative because they think conservative policies are aimed at cutting funding for deadbeats, not themselves. It’s a great con. Down east, this is less prevalent. I’m progressive because I’m economically conservative. It’s cheaper to provide free addictions services than pay for multiple emergency room visits and incarcerations. Welfare is cheaper than the cost of crime and incarcerations. Spending on infrastructure maintenance is cheaper than rebuilding neglected infrastructure. I could go on, but you get the point. Being conservative is the opposite of what conservatives sell us as a message.
  2. 1 point
    I think Affirmative Action is often misrepresented. It isn't meant for making up for past mistakes. It is to prevent ongoing discrimination. The goals surrounded Affirmative Action are typically that a business or school have diversity levels proportional to society at large. Preventing a school from only have a 0.5% minority student population is the aim. Affirmative Action is managed differently in different places but it is very much about preventing discrimination in the present and not just some sort of consolation for past wrongs. They are still companies, schools, clubs, teams, unions, and etc throughout the country today which are 100% white. Affirmative Action forces organizations to be more inclusive by pressuring them to meet minimum levels of diversity that mirror society. Most things in life are incestuous. We get out religion, diet, hobbies, and etc from our family. Which type of work one pursues or type of education also is greatly influenced by family. People are more likely to do or consider things their parents or siblings did. As such many institution which formally prevented minorities might struggle getting many minority application. Some institutions may have 99% white applicants. Affirmative Action encourages such institutions to open some spots and find a way to recruit some diversity. With that said I agree with your conclusion. Reparations is too big bite. We still have monuments up honoring Jefferson Davis for #*ck sake.
  3. 1 point
    Why would they be? Progress seems to be "the road" and success seems to be "the destination". It's important to acknowledge both.
  4. 1 point
    You've really gotta start adding some 'meat' to your potatoes, Dimreepr
  5. 1 point
    Segregation just ended 50yrs ago. There are millions alive today who sat in the back of the bus and endured numerous levels of mistreatment. It isn't ancient history or a discussion about ancestors removed by generations. Victims of racial disenfranchisement exist today. In Germany there are laws against Holocaust denial and any statues of Hilter have long since been destroyed. In Germany they take full responsibility for there past ugliness. Here in the U.S. It is very different. Confederate flags fly and founding fathers are revered with godlike adoration despite many being slave owners and murdering Natives. Here in the U.S. we have a very long way to go. 40+ percentage of the voting public just put an obvious bigot in the White House. People do tend to agree individuals have been treated different based on race but which groups were treated better or worse is a matter of disagreement. As we see with climate change studies don't change minds.
  6. 1 point
    One has to wonder about the quality of a summary that makes such a fundamental error, mistaking power and energy.
  7. 1 point
    So, there is an interesting book by Metzl that just been out that explains to some degree how politicians manage to maintain these policies (though not necessarily why). The provocative title is "Dying by Whiteness" and the author argues that certain white folks are voting against government health programs, gun control and tax laws that would actually benefit them and actually hurting their own health in the process. The way politicians convince them to do so is by selling them as countermeasures against what they describe as criminals, lazy government moochers and Big government. In other words, they sell these measures as ways, to safeguard to position of white folks in today's society. Politicians tap into the fear that redistribution of resources may endanger to their privilege. A barely veiled implication that is sold heavily is that these social measures will take away from whites and benefit minorities. Metzl is a psychologist but has taken an epidemiological view on these policies and demonstrates that they actually hurt (poor) white folks as badly as the minorities against which those measures are supposed to be leveraged against. The interesting bit is that while policies were shaped by racial tension, the individuals do not necessarily have an explicit racist world view (and aspect that he highlighted in interviews), but politicians heavily tap into the fear of loss and the use of scapegoats. I think despite the issues Canada may have, there a bit less fear that someone undeserved may come up. Though I am pretty sure instances likes this where folks work against their interest may also be present (I guess that is something to read up on).
  8. 1 point
    NZ are 100% certain [within a week] to now update their gun laws in line with Australia's tough gun laws, and at the same time, wait for it, Australia is seriously considering making our tough gun laws even tougher. That would certainly eat at the craw of the NRA and Trump supporters I imagine. I did mention this in another thread.
  9. 1 point
    If I was American, I would want a few things addressed... A national Health care system with coverage for all, because it's absurd that one of the most advanced countries in the world can't care for all its people. Stricter rules for gun availability/possession; The mass shootings and gun violence cannot be allowed to continue. This isn't the wild west anymore. Not so much a cut-back on military spending, but rather, on the wars and policing actions the US is involved in; that is what costs big time. As the saying went; you can have a big stick, but walk softly, you don't need to use it all the time. Deterrence means not having to use it. I don't necessarily agree with restitution for past injustices, but would like to see equal opportunity for all, in the way of subsidizing the educational system such that it is affordable to a majority of young people. If we can do it in Canada, why can't the US ? I also don't agree with the call to change the electoral college system, Ten oz. During the last Canadian election, the Liberals were coming from behind, and there were doubts as to whether they could win. They promised electoral reform ( to proportional representation ) during the campaign. This idea was quickly shelved once they won a majority, and deemed unfeasible. I guess we'll have to wait until they lose before they start proposing it again.
  10. 1 point
    It's not necessary to have an innate skill to start studying an introductory course...prerequisites maybe but not talent. So that is a bit of a moot point. I get that, but the entire thrust of my first post was, if you're in a funk and wasting time in front of a pc, that pc and time could be utilised to progress somewhere. It was merely to widen his eyes to that fact...context is everything I guess.
  11. 1 point
    Air is not nothing. You can't see it, but it is a gas. Space is not nothing. Just because you cannot see, detect, or define empty space, doesn't mean it is nothing. The something we can see, came out of something we cannot see.
  12. 1 point
    I don’t see how “nothing” can be unstable, there wouldn’t be anything to be unstable. And I am not going to listen to an entire (stupid sounding) audiobook to see if it makes any sense. Why is there something? Because there is. Because if there weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. This is not a question science can answer. It is one for philosophy or religion (but they can only answer by making something up).
  13. 1 point
    The evidence for the BB tells us that the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state at t=10-43 seconds to what we see today, 13.83 billion years later. Science/cosmology explains the formation of matter, the elements, stars, planets, galaxies etc with reasonable competency. Before that, at this time we can only make an educated hypothesis. This is one that I believe holds promise. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Why is there something rather then nothing? That's just the way the cookie crumbles. What really needs to be defined, is what is nothing imo.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.