All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

I can't remember who said it, but the quote was "If my child is old enough to be affected by racism, yours is old enough to learn about it."

This is not in dispute.

Everyone here, and everyone quoted recently on the topic, is in agreement that kids should learn about racism. The question is about the how.

Rather than get offended by excerpts of a helpful children's book to combat racism, I will instead offer 5 ways to combat white supremacy for white allies someone could adopt, if they would like to not being accused of promoting it, when it's completely possible they're just unable to realize they are passively contributing to it (Hopefully passively).

It remains not personal. This is, after all, a teachable moment where someone could grow if they chose.

I think we're both in agreement about this being a teachable moment. The main question is who should grow,

I'll note that you're not really making an argument that I was wrong on the specifics. The view is that I'm on the wrong side.

Presumably, we can agree that we should strive to avoid accusing anyone of anything untrue.

This is the game the Republicans play, one that our resident conservative seems eager to join in. While we face the very real and great threats of Climate Change, a crumbling infrastructure and gross income inequity (among other problems), they want to make the issue CRT and transgender bathrooms.
Stopping action on real issues by manufacturing fake issues.

Given the Republican screw-ups, Democrats could probably set themselves up for a generation of wins if they would abandon the stuff that is stupid and unpopular.

So if someone's complaining about CRT and points out something dumb in American schools and workplace training, Democrats could take a stance against it and avoid this being a partisan issue.
And when someone's complaining about CRT but the critic is in the wrong, Democrats could point that out, and put Republicans in the place of having to either defend or disavow their dumb critics.
If a position is unpopular and necessary, Democrats can defend it on the merits. But they seem too unwilling to pick their battles.

[Mister Mets]

Please don't be disingenuous. I wasn't saying Sullivan shouldn't be taken seriously because he objects to the book. It was the ridiculously over-the-top and patently false manner in which he did so that caused him to lose whatever credibility he might still have remaining with somebody, somewhere.

Can we apply this to all situations? In this case, any journalist or commentator who goes too far should lose all credibility, with potential exceptions for anyone who admits quickly that they were over the top.

I find it telling when people are more worried about being called racist than they are about being racist.

Because it's a terrible thing to be racist, most people will get pissed off about being called racist. You can be opposed to the sale of hard drugs to children, and be pissed off about anyone who incorrectly accuses you of selling hard drugs to children.

For the same reason, most people don't think they're racist. This applies to many racists.

One complicating question is the definition of racist. I listened to an interview with Ibrim X Kendi for Slate's A Word podcast where he's talked about how his understanding has changed, that racism is structural but that all individuals can be racist.

Do you think people who aren't racist, or trying their best not to be, would?

And the page you posted there is still light years away from Andrew Sullivan's hysterical nonsense about, 'indoctrinating children into the evil of whiteness' or whatthefuckever he thinks is going on here.

The page itself was pretty damn ridiculous. As a practical matter, what does it look like to have a toddler confessing their own racist feelings?

The book's main definition of racism is that anyone who isn't explicitly antiracist (so anyone who doesn't agree with Ibrim X Kendi) is racist. This has some implications in that the call for immediate action, naming and confession doesn't allow time for reflection, or to consider whether a strategy is effective.

The idea that white identity is inherently racist is pretty common within the movement, as is the idea that there's a push to get people of color to adopt white cultural norms like punctuality, respect for data or married parents, and that this is a bad thing (The 6th Step of Antiracist Baby.)

While some people would be happy to continue to engage in the ridiculous 'critical race theory' moral panic -- when what they really mean is teaching anything about racism and its history at all -- by 'just asking questions' about an anti-racist children's book -- they will of course be conspicuously silent on matters like this one:

https://www.salon.com/2021/07/09/ste...otted-at-cpac/

I think you're the first person to mention it so everyone is conspicuously quiet on the issue.

But if a poster hasn't talked about any topic, should we come up with an ungenerous interpretation of their motives?

[Malvolio]

This is not in dispute.

Everyone here, and everyone quoted recently on the topic, is in agreement that kids should learn about racism. The question is about the how.

Ah. "...the how." There's the rub. Conservatives seem to want racism to be taught as a one day lesson that starts with slavery, which a Republican President ended, continues with Jim Crow, which was started by Democrats, and then, oh yeah, a Black Democrat elected President, so that puts racism entirely in the past.

[Jack Dracula]

[QUOTE=Mister Mets;5627600]T

his is not in dispute.

Everyone here, and everyone quoted recently on the topic, is in agreement that kids should learn about racism. The question is about the how.

I think we're both in agreement about this being a teachable moment. The main question is who should grow,

And if Republicans can manage to occupy and deflect everyone's time and energy by overcomplicating the subject and making it seem insurmountable then no change will ever take place because any effort will always seem to be rife with unbearable consequences.

I'll note that you're not really making an argument that I was wrong on the specifics. The view is that I'm on the wrong side.

Focusing on specifics can muddy the waters. The fact that you claim to agree and yet strangle the issue with specifics tells people you're on the wrong side.

Presumably, we can agree that we should strive to avoid accusing anyone of anything untrue.

Given the Republican screw-ups, Democrats could probably set themselves up for a generation of wins if they would abandon the stuff that is stupid and unpopular.

The "stupid and unpopular" things are focused on, deliberately misinterpreted and blown out of proportion by the Republicans in an effort to gin up outrage in their base and keep them engaged.

So if someone's complaining about CRT and points out something dumb in American schools and workplace training, Democrats could take a stance against it and avoid this being a partisan issue.

Because it's Democrats who are in the wrong by trying to fix one of our society's greatest ongoing problems or really even bringing the subject of systemic racism up for discussion? Nope. The Republicans feed their base on the outrage created by their making societal ills partisan issues. Why can't Republicans acknowledge the problem and reach across the aisle to help fix it?

And when someone's complaining about CRT but the critic is in the wrong, Democrats could point that out, and put Republicans in the place of having to either defend or disavow their dumb critics.

We all know the days of Republicans condemning or correcting one of their own are long gone. Unless. of course we're talking about someone criticizing Trump.

If a position is unpopular and necessary, Democrats can defend it on the merits. But they seem too unwilling to pick their battles.

Democrats do defend issues on their merits. Racism is bad and something must be done. Republicans twist and attempt to control the argument by trying to be the gatekeepers of the proper methods.

Name one positive change the Republican party has made or tried to make to society in the last 30 years? By positive I mean a correction to a chronic problem affecting the poor or disenfranchised in our society.

[numberthirty]

...

Name one positive change the Republican party has made or tried to make to society in the last 30 years? By positive I mean a correction to a chronic problem affecting the poor or disenfranchised in our society.

If we're gonna just call "Balls..."/"Strikes..."?

https://www.politico.com/interactive...icy-positions/

Biden vs. Trump: Who’s the Actual Criminal Justice Reformer?

Getting people back to work.

The First Step Act dedicated a number of resources to reducing recidivism. The Trump administration assigned the U.S. Probation Office and the Department of Labor to help incarcerated people prepare to return home and find jobs, and the White House launched a “Ready to Work Initiative” to connect formerly incarcerated individuals with non-profits and potential employers.

[Jack Dracula]

If we're gonna just call "Balls..."/"Strikes..."?

https://www.politico.com/interactive...icy-positions/

You mean the 2015 Obama/Biden Ready to Work Initiative?

Bill Barr supported the Bureau of Prisons using the funding of the RtWI to help former federal inmates reintegrate into society but let's not pretend the idea originated with the Republican Party leadership or Representatives in the House or Senate. The DOJ is supposed to be non-partisan anyway.
I guess Trumps administration and Justice Dept can be credited with managing to not eliminate the RtWI along with most of Obamas initiatives. Or maybe they hadn't gotten around to it yet.
I'd also point out that prison reform and reducing sentencing for minor and non-violent drug offenses was not even on the radar for Republicans over the last 30 years.

[numberthirty]

...

I'd also point out that prison reform and reducing sentencing for minor and non-violent drug offenses was not even on the radar for Republicans over the last 30 years.

Did you ask for "Made..."/Attempted..." or "Magically Turned Into Something Else..."?

Past that?

"Did They Invent The Idea?..." has very little to do with what you actually asked for...

...

Name one positive change the Republican party has made or tried to make to society in the last 30 years? By positive I mean a correction to a chronic problem affecting the poor or disenfranchised in our society.

Is what is in the article not that?

Doesn't really change that the party is a massive drag on attempting to get most worthwhile changes made, but we don't have to try to attempt to rework actual reality either while we are discussing things.

[Robotman]

Feds agree to pay $6.1M to create database for Capitol riot prosecutions

The Justice Department has agreed to pay $6.1 million to a technology contractor to create a massive database of videos, photographs, documents and social media posts related to the Capitol riot as part of the process of turning relevant evidence over to defense attorneys for the more than 500 people facing criminal charges in the Jan. 6 events, according to a court filing and government records.

Good! If any of these terrorists ever apply for a job, buy a house, buy a gun, etc. a big red flag needs to pop up.

[Mister Mets]

Ah. "...the how." There's the rub. Conservatives seem to want racism to be taught as a one day lesson that starts with slavery, which a Republican President ended, continues with Jim Crow, which was started by Democrats, and then, oh yeah, a Black Democrat elected President, so that puts racism entirely in the past.

This view has not been articulated by anyone here, or anyone they have quoted.

And if Republicans can manage to occupy and deflect everyone's time and energy by overcomplicating the subject and making it seem insurmountable then no change will ever take place because any effort will always seem to be rife with unbearable consequences.

If someone goes after me personally, I am going to point out why that person is in error.

Focusing on specifics can muddy the waters. The fact that you claim to agree and yet strangle the issue with specifics tells people you're on the wrong side.

It's not hard for someone to say "Yeah, that's absurd" and move on.

Or in the event I'm wrong on the specifics, they could also say that I'm mistaken on the specifics and point out how.

Instead there seems to be an argument about whether someone is on the right side, rather than whether the comments are correct.

The "stupid and unpopular" things are focused on, deliberately misinterpreted and blown out of proportion by the Republicans in an effort to gin up outrage in their base and keep them engaged.

It's an easy thing to point out if something is deliberately misinterpreted.

Determining whether something is "Blown out of proportion" is complicated. Granted, it does allow for easy solutions. If something is stupid and rare, it's politically useful for Democrats to say it won't happen again, because the policy change is so miniscule. After all, the error was blown out of proportion.

Because it's Democrats who are in the wrong by trying to fix one of our society's greatest ongoing problems or really even bringing the subject of systemic racism up for discussion? Nope. The Republicans feed their base on the outrage created by their making societal ills partisan issues. Why can't Republicans acknowledge the problem and reach across the aisle to help fix it?

Democrats can fight systemic racism without giving people saying stupid things taxpayer money, and without making their work part of a school curriculum.

We all know the days of Republicans condemning or correcting one of their own are long gone. Unless. of course we're talking about someone criticizing Trump.

I suspect that if Democrats picked their battles on CRT better, Republicans will have a hard time disavowing dumb critics.

Fortunately for Republicans, Democrats aren't able to do this.

Democrats do defend issues on their merits. Racism is bad and something must be done. Republicans twist and attempt to control the argument by trying to be the gatekeepers of the proper methods.

There's wide agreement that racism is bad.

It's all about the specific solutions. Democrats could pick their fights better on that.

Name one positive change the Republican party has made or tried to make to society in the last 30 years? By positive I mean a correction to a chronic problem affecting the poor or disenfranchised in our society.

This is a good question.

There's a wide consensus that Republican policies keep prices lower, even if progressives will disagree about the tradeoffs. The costs on regulations does tend to have a disparate impact on the poor.

Republicans generally push for the idea that people should be married before they have kids, which correlates to greater success in life for the next generation.

Republicans have pushed reforms to increase the quality of schools in low-income neighborhoods, and to offer poor families the higher level of school choice close to what is available to upper middle class professionals, rather than having them be limited to the one zoned public school.

[Malvolio]

This view has not been articulated by anyone here, or anyone they have quoted.

.

Well, no. No one has made the exact bit of sarcasm I used as their entire argument. But please, inform me of the deeper dive into the history of racism in America that Republicans are willing to have taught in our public schools.

[Gray Lensman]

Well, no. No one has made the exact bit of sarcasm I used as their entire argument. But please, inform me of the deeper dive into the history of racism in America that Republicans are willing to have taught in our public schools.

If they are anything like the right-wing people I still keep track of, they're perfectly willing to keep teaching it up until (but absolutely NOT including) party realignment. One can't teach what they refuse to acknowledge.

[Malvolio]

If they are anything like the right-wing people I still keep track of, they're perfectly willing to keep teaching it up until (but absolutely NOT including) party realignment. One can't teach what they refuse to acknowledge.

Right. Have to pretend that the "Party of Lincoln" is exactly the same as the Republican Party of the 21st century, and have to pretend that the Democratic Party that endorsed the KKK is exactly the same as the Democratic Party of the 21st century.

[Robotman]

Basically the Democrats and democracy itself are f$&@ed.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...d-rules-498854

[Tami]

Fox News is going to be in trouble when Trump finds out

[OopsIdiditagain]

What is it about sports games that has people acting up? Especially with Football.
It's sad how football teams are tied to some people's sentiments towards immigrants.