All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Mister Mets]

You have absolutely no proof of that -- to the contrary, many people tend to get more conservative as they get older, which is why so many of our older relatives tend to be hardened racists.

Those who are rarely -- if ever -- exposed to people of other races and cultures have no reason whatsoever to become less racist as time passes, as exposure and travel are often the main reasons why people change their racist and/or bigoted views.

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/1205162...nce-psychology



I've dealt with that kind of thing more times than I can count -- think the worst (non-violent) one was when some girl asked one of my USC roommates to ask me to leave my own apartment because she didn't think I was supposed to be there at the party he was throwing.

Then she asked said roommate to ask me if I could stay in my room while she was there at the party because black guys made her "uncomfortable".

Ironically enough, I don't even stress those kinds of situations anymore because they aren't even moderately life threatening -- so long as cops aren't involved, I can handle basic racism with no problem.

Same thing happened when I was living in Westwood and some guy walked up to me and told me that he had seen me on a wanted poster (because there were "thefts in the area") and that I should leave if I didn't want him to call the cops -- I told him to call them if he wanted to, but that's exactly the kind of situation where an unarmed black man can get beaten or shot just become of some random ignorant racist.

Responding to this post a few days late, but it's an interesting question.

The main evidence I have that people get less bigoted as they get older is statistics on various questions that are seen as proxies for racism, where support for racist policies declines at too fast a rate to be explained purely by older people dying.

Older people may be on average more bigoted than younger generations, which does make it seem like it was a problem with old people when it's more likely an issue with their generation. Bigots at 60 were more likely to be bigots at 30, while some people who were bigots at 30 changed their ways.

The main question would be about whether people who were thirty in 1980 are less racist than people who were sixty in 2010. And I'm looking at racism as an absolute value rather than something relative, since the young are generally more accepting than older generations, so someone who doesn't change from thirty to sixty might be more racist relative to the rest of the population, even if his views are largely the same.

The Vox article is more about how older people are more conservative relative to the overall population, but does suggest this might be due to changes in the larger population rather than the individual.

He stresses that the effect size was small. “If you are pretty liberal as a 40 year old, you will most likely be pretty liberal as a 60 year old,” he writes. But “the absolute level might go down a bit.” You’ll still be a liberal 60-year-old relative to other 60-year-olds, but less liberal compared with a group of 25-year-olds.

The article has an interesting point on whether older people are less inhibited, and therefore more likely to express problematic views. But it is reliant on implicit bias tests, although the accuracy of those is dodgy.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Ca...mplicit/238807

No -- they are not. Again -- no one is seriously advocating "open borders" with immigrants "pouring in" as Trump and many other Republicans keeps claiming, and the both of us know it. The reason they keep repeating that phrase is to instill fear in the voting public about "illegal immigrants" and crime and while it's a somewhat effective strategy given the racist history of our country, it's one that will only end up further dividing our nation in the end.

We can't have this discussion if you can't even be honest about your party's position (and talking points) and the bottom line here, really, is that your party's current policy is separating children from their parents and putting them in cages, with no solid plan for reunification.

As I've said repeatedly, If that's the party -- and those are the policies -- you want to support, then so be it.

Trump signed an executive order changing the separation policy a few days ago, so it's objectively not the Republican party's current policy.

[aja_christopher]

Trump signed an executive order changing the separation policy a few days ago, so it's objectively not the Republican party's current policy.

Because some the "base" (including evangelicals) finally spoke up against the Republican party's policies and in return, the Republicans finally "suggested" Trump not throw children into cages because it "looks bad" -- just like with Guantanomo torture and Russian election interference, Republicans always seem to have little problem with immoral or unethical behavior within their own circles until it's brought to light... and even then they tend to look the other way under Trump.

They aren't concerned about human rights and civil behavior towards non-whites -- most are just concerned about winning the election by any means necessary.

If that means that a few people have to be separated from their children and lose due process of law, then so be it.

Come to think of it, we had this exact same kind of discussion about "stop and frisk" policies and racial profiling, so at least you're consistent in that respect.

The article has an interesting point on whether older people are less inhibited, and therefore more likely to express problematic views. But it is reliant on implicit bias tests, although the accuracy of those is dodgy.

It would make sense that older people are less inhibited if only because they are probably a lot less concerned about what others think of them at that age, but I think that it might just be as likely that many people "mellow out" as they get older and (possibly) have experiences that mitigate a lot of their prejudices -- even if it's just via certain positive representations that they see in the media (sports, politics, music, film, etc) that defy said prejudices.

A lot of said media didn't exist in the past so those experiences were much less frequent but now kids can boot up Netflix or watch the Disney Channel and get exposed to a lot of nationalities and cultures that they otherwise might only see in a negative light.

I'd agree that it's something that needs more study: the optimist in me leans towards wanting to think most people get "better" as they age but I've learned from experience not to let optimist get in the way of reality.

[Trey Strain]

The Democrats got tremendously excited because they thought they had found the Kryptonite that would destroy Trump, But they hadn't. They've badly misread public opinion about the borders.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/opini...ion/index.html

[Tendrin]

Meanwhile, in the real world, separating children from their parents is pretty monstrous, as is indefinite detention, and nobody is actually asking for these so-called 'open borders', not even Democrats. An opinion article written by an assistant to frigging Mitch McConnel isn't going to change this reality.

[Kirby101]

The Democrats got tremendously excited because they thought they had found the Kryptonite that would destroy Trump, But they hadn't. They've badly misread public opinion about the borders.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/opini...ion/index.html

Because a right wing hack says so?

Why don't you just link Brietbart and tell us how Trump is pollingbat 80%.

[GindyPosts]

Because a right wing hack says so?

Why don't you just link Brietbart and tell us how Trump is pollingbat 80%.

He did link the Moonies Times.

So... Californians will vote on a referendum to split up the state this November. It'll probably fail, but realistically, Republicans want it just so they don't have to put up with Los Angeles anymore, which is ironic, given that LA is full of big shots who support conservative policies, but you know; gotta play the victim.

[Tami]

Crying in Trump’s Big, Fat, Oval Office

This is a three-part series of short satirical video cartoons called “Trump Bites” by Bill Plympton, a two-time Oscar-nominated animator.

In Episode One of “Trump Bites,” above, the president humble-brags about the “bigness” of the Oval Office, relishing his own importance. But his small-mindedness and incompetence grow more evident with every boast.

“Trump Bites” is a series of three short video cartoons that combine real Donald Trump audio clips with hand-drawn fantasy animations by Mr. Plympton. The video cartoons riff on Mr. Trump’s absurd utterances to illustrate the president’s tumultuous inner life of paranoia, narcissism and xenophobia.

Known for his outrageous sense of humor, Mr. Plympton is an iconoclastic animator who creates irreverent, unsettling and at times disturbing cartoons. He is best known for animated shorts such as “How to Kiss” and “Guard Dog,” and for his contributions to MTV’s “Liquid Television” in the early 1990s. Over the decades, his animations were largely apolitical — until now. The Trump presidency inspired him to extend his provocative art to political satire.

[Tami]

Rachel Maddow reported about something strange happening in Maryland, I think it has to do with the Campaign Manger of Baker who is in the Democratic Primary. If I find more references to it I will post them.

[Tendrin]

As seen on twitter: "Maxine Waters' reign of terror did not end with Michael Tracey"

Bwahahahahah

[Tendrin]

But the Red Hen was mean to Sanders!

https://twitter.com/ASFried/status/1011385963162013696

[mathew101281]

He did link the Moonies Times.

So... Californians will vote on a referendum to split up the state this November. It'll probably fail, but realistically, Republicans want it just so they don't have to put up with Los Angeles anymore, which is ironic, given that LA is full of big shots who support conservative policies, but you know; gotta play the victim.

Actually a lot of them don’t. Right now California only gets 2 senators in the senate. If that thing were to pass, that 2 would turn to 6. Possibly altering the balance of the senate. That’s not even considering all the redistricting that would take place that could easily turn the house as well.

[Tendrin]

Actually a lot of them don’t. Right now California only gets 2 senators in the senate. If that thing were to pass that two would turn to 6. Possibly altering the balance of the senate.

That's the whole plan, of course. The reason to split the state is the cram it full of more GOP and Reps and Senators by splitting off the blue areas from the red. It's an attempt to gerrymander the House and Senate even further to the right's advantage.

It won't pass, of course.

[Tendrin]

Republican House member shouts, "YOU LIE!" at Obama in the middle of the State of the Union. Effigies of the first black presdent are hanged and set ablaze.

But when a press sec who is shamelessly lying about kids being put in cages is refused service, the DC press establishment finally clutches its pearls and shouts for civility.

[Tazirai]

I'm starting to see something funny on the Interwebs.

#civility


MOSTLY from the Republicans.

People on the left are SICK of being told to be civil to these Fascists, fuck them.
The Right Wing hates it when we fight back, the Media hates it when we fight back. People are sick of it now.

We are nonviolent and peaceful, but we are LOUD and ANGRY.

People called Maxine Waters names for YEARS, now she's fighting back, and people wanna shame her?

[Tazirai]

Republican House member shouts, "YOU LIE!" at Obama in the middle of the State of the Union. Effigies of the first black presdent are hanged and set ablaze.

But when a press sec who is shamelessly lying about kids being put in cages is refused service, the DC press establishment finally clutches its pearls and shouts for civility.

But the Establishment media wants us to be #civility