Board 8 > Chris' political topic. Where Chris posts super casually about political stuff.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also the funny thing about merit is that pretty much no one in the history of anything has been hired because they were the best person for the job.

There is no objective best person for most jobs. In most cases, you get hired because youre a qualified enough applicant and they dont want to bother continuing to search.
---

I struggle to remember... it's either Lexington or Louisville... but one of those cities has a relatively new superintendent that has completely turned things around in recent years.

If other City-Public-School systems follow their example, huge changes could be made. Problem is, a lot of cities are segregated in ways that make fixing education difficult without fixing neighborhoods.

And fixing neighborhoods often just leads to gentrification.
---

Gentrification is probably the lesser of two evils in that equation, but I know a lot of people would passionately disagree and I defer to their own knowledge of their communities.
---

pyresword posted...

For the record I wouldn't say I'm totally on-board with affirmative action myself.

For most of my life I've actually been opposed to it, and have only in the past 2 years or so decided that I think it is actually addressing a problem and is better than doing nothing. It still doesn't totally sit well with me though and it seems like there is likely a better solution out there. What that is I don't know. From a theoretical standpoint it makes sense to basically do affirmative action but explicitly on the basis of socioeconomic background rather than race (so poor white applicants receive the same preferential treatment as poor minority applicants), but there could easily be practical hurdles to actually implementing such an idea.

I definitely agree that socioeconomic background is a crucial factor, and it might be for the best to base at least some aspect of affirmative action on that as well.

But it is also worth remembering there is one group that the government created as an underclass due to unfair lending, borrowing, and monetary based policies. The 1960s were not that long ago. Black people do not have generational wealth like white people do (at least in near the same percentage), and it is purely due to policies put in place by the federal government.

Black people could be owned as slaves in the 1860s. The civil rights movement continued well into the 1960s. How much wealth was lost to the black community because of that? If you tie socioeconomic status as an indicator for future success, and understand the importance of colleges administering people from low income communities due to the harder road they had, I think it also necessarily follows that race based affirmative action is, overall, a societal good.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik posted...

I disagree specifically that it is "racism" when you blindly do not apply to race.

I also think it IS racism to choose a black person of poor financial background over a white person of poor financial background simply because of race.

One is making a decision based on race. One is not.

Jakyl's point is that making a decision based on socioeconomic status is linked to basing a decision on race. That's not malevolent racism, it's statistics.

If you choose to ignore statistics when making such decisions, then you are choosing to ignore that your practices overwhelmingly benefit white people over black.

I think we can all agree in general that things would be better off if we could find better ways to reduce poverty. It would certainly help people of all races.

If you have to consider race to make a decision, you are making a judgment based on racism. Whether negative or positive.

Race should make no difference at all into your decision. Nor should sex, etc.
---

Corrik, do you believe that concessions should have been made to specifically assist blacks in the Reconstruction era South?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik, do you believe that concessions should have been made to specifically assist blacks in the Reconstruction era South?

Yes.
---

Corrik posted...

If you have to consider race to make a decision, you are making a judgment based on racism. Whether negative or positive.

Race should make no difference at all into your decision. Nor should sex, etc.

Pretending that problems don't exist doesn't make them go away. Being willfully blind of racist policies just helps enable them.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik posted...

If you have to consider race to make a decision, you are making a judgment based on racism. Whether negative or positive.

Race should make no difference at all into your decision. Nor should sex, etc.

Pretending that problems don't exist doesn't make them go away. Being willfully blind of racist policies just helps enable them.

Sounds to me like you are hoping for something to help out those who are not as well off financially.

That should not be only limited to one race in that bracket.

Help everyone or help no one.
---

Corrik posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik posted...

If you have to consider race to make a decision, you are making a judgment based on racism. Whether negative or positive.

Race should make no difference at all into your decision. Nor should sex, etc.

Pretending that problems don't exist doesn't make them go away. Being willfully blind of racist policies just helps enable them.

Sounds to me like you are hoping for something to help out those who are not as well off financially.

That should not be only limited to one race in that bracket.

Help everyone or help no one.

This sounds very much like saying "all lives matter" to counter a movement based specifically around disproportionately black deaths via cop.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik posted...

If you have to consider race to make a decision, you are making a judgment based on racism. Whether negative or positive.

Race should make no difference at all into your decision. Nor should sex, etc.

Pretending that problems don't exist doesn't make them go away. Being willfully blind of racist policies just helps enable them.

Sounds to me like you are hoping for something to help out those who are not as well off financially.

That should not be only limited to one race in that bracket.

Help everyone or help no one.

This sounds very much like saying "all lives matter" to counter a movement based specifically around disproportionately black deaths via cop.

If you want to take something said about economic statuses, and apply it to a racial situation then that is on you.

Yes, Black Lives Matter is a bad slogan. We have gone over this before.

All lives do matter.

I have since the beginning of time said that I believe the rich should be taxed more and the poorer less.

I have also said I support a Universal Basic Income as long as every American receives it across the board.

I do not believe in singling out races or giving people bonus points because they were born into some group.
---

Corrik posted...

Yes, Black Lives Matter is a bad slogan.

Yo Corrik you are wrong and misinformed
---

What if everyone starts with the same points but then some lawmaker or policy or whatever--either by accident or through maliciousness--takes away points from one specific group? Should they get the points back or does that count as giving out bonus points?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Yes, Black Lives Matter is a bad slogan.

Yo Corrik you are wrong and misinformed

You can't be wrong and misinformed on an opinion of that type.
---

pyresword posted...

What if everyone starts with the same points but then some lawmaker or policy or whatever--either by accident or through maliciousness--takes away points from one specific group? Should they get the points back or does that count as giving out bonus points?

They can give the points back.
---

Ok we can agree on that much then!

Of course, now the debate turns to how well the situation I've described represents reality, but I lack the time/energy and probably the expertise to make any significant attempt at arguing that point.
---

Corrik posted...

Yes, Black Lives Matter is a bad slogan. We have gone over this before.

All lives do matter.

Are Black Lives not included in all?

So you're saying Black Lives do Matter?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Yes, Black Lives Matter is a bad slogan. We have gone over this before.

All lives do matter.

Are Black Lives not included in all?

So you're saying Black Lives do Matter?

Go try to bait some race nonsense in the other topic. Too casual for that trash here.
---

Yo Corrik you're taking this way too seriously.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yo Corrik you're taking this way too seriously.

Nah I'm super cas
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Perez 2028. Love that girl.

Her stances are crazy.
---

Her stances are awesome.
---

Whoever that person is that you like is bad, but man I hear that person you dislike is really swell
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Her stances are awesome.

Abolishing ICE is astronomically crazy.
---

Nah not really.
---

Its only been around for like 15 years, its not like its a storied institution.
---

It is there for a reason
---

So is the Affordable Care Act.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Perez 2028. Love that girl.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Her stances are awesome.

Uhhh

Do you guys mean Ocasio-Cortez?

Please tell me theres a Perez I dont know about and you didnt just substitute a different Hispanic last name for shorthand
---

There is an important Democratic Perez though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Perez

She's let herself go in recent years though.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Perez 2028. Love that girl.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Her stances are awesome.

Uhhh

Do you guys mean Ocasio-Cortez?

Please tell me theres a Perez I dont know about and you didnt just substitute a different Hispanic last name for shorthand

I honestly read Perez as Cortez because I know she is 28 and needs to be 35 to run and did mental substitution there.

Lmao.
---

Corrik posted...

Sounds to me like you are hoping for something to help out those who are not as well off financially.

That should not be only limited to one race in that bracket.

Help everyone or help no one.

Man, it's almost like I said something along those lines. I guess it's too much to expect you to read posts though *shrug*
---

Suprak tell me everything I need to know about kavanaugh.

Then tell me the liberal outrage version of everything I need to know.
---

From what I understand, Kavanaugh was the best we could have hoped for. Dude really looks up to Kennedy.
---

trdl23 posted...

From what I understand, Kavanaugh was the best we could have hoped for. Dude really looks up to Kennedy.

I thought i saw people saying on ResetERA before that kavanaugh would be the worst choice.
---

If he is a moderate conservative then that is good. His views align with mine likely then.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Corrik posted...

If he is a moderate conservative then that is good. His views align with mine likely then.

He could have nominated Barack Obama or Merrick Garland and liberals would have complained. They're idiots.

That is way more drastic than reality.

If he had nominated Garland, it would have been a real olive branch to soothe the divide. But, realistically that olive branch would have lasted maybe a week or two before extreme liberals were back at it, so I am glad he didn't.
---

I like this topic more than the other one.
---

Me too. This is a simple place to discuss politics.

The nominee: Could be worse in theory but it is really shitty for a lot of things I care about. This is why we should have nominated Bernie but the democratic party voters disagreed and now look at this.
---

He is not the moderate candidate. Liberals were "hoping" for Hardiman. Do not let people tell you he was the moderate, Corrik, because they are intentionally misleading you. He's likely going to be the right of everyone on the court right now with the exception of Thomas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/07/exactly-how-conservative-are-the-judges-on-

(LONG LINK PLEASE COMBINE)

trumps-short-list-for-the-supreme-court-take-a-look-at-this-one-chart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.62082ee505c6

Hardiman wasn't necessarily liberal, but he was "likely" to be more moderate than Kavanaugh. They're all fairly far to the right though, and there was no "olive branch" candidate. I'll get back with a longer post to you tomorrow Corrik since you asked. I was hoping for Hardiman though. The one thing Kavanaugh has going for him is he said he wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade already.

He's also said some weird things about the ability to put Presidents on trial in regards to Clinton (he worked with Starr on that back in the day) that is somewhat concerning considering what Trump is going through.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

He's also said some weird things about the ability to put Presidents on trial in regards to Clinton (he worked with Starr on that back in the day) that is somewhat concerning considering what Trump is going through.

So that others don't misunderstand this, he said these things in 2009, long after Starr's investigation was done. In other words, he worked on that investigation when it was politically convenient, then gave his other opinion long after it was relevant.
---

MajinZidane posted...

I like this topic more than the other one.

Vlados is still the best though
---

Corrik posted...

If he is a moderate conservative then that is good. His views align with mine likely then.

Corrik posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Corrik posted...

If he is a moderate conservative then that is good. His views align with mine likely then.

He could have nominated Barack Obama or Merrick Garland and liberals would have complained. They're idiots.

That is way more drastic than reality.

If he had nominated Garland, it would have been a real olive branch to soothe the divide. But, realistically that olive branch would have lasted maybe a week or two before extreme liberals were back at it, so I am glad he didn't.

This checks out.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

dems in deep red states are committing political suicide by voting no.

Wait, you're actually expecting Democrats to have a spine?

There were two or three Democrats in the Senate who voted in favour of Neil Gorsuch after getting the seat stolen away from them.

Corrik posted...

If he had nominated Garland, it would have been a real olive branch to soothe the divide. But, realistically that olive branch would have lasted maybe a week or two before extreme liberals were back at it, so I am glad he didn't.

See, the thing that bothers me about putting only extremists on the supreme court is that you get 5-4 decisions along party lines, which...honestly feels less like "these are the world's experts on the American constitution" and more like "these are a bunch of fucking partisan hacks." The supreme court is also looking less and less like the American people (a growing number of whom are independents). I think it would be better for everyone if there were like...a lot of independents and moderates on the supreme court. Like...maybe 3 democrats, 3 republicans, and 3 moderate/independents.

And make no mistake, we definitely have nothing like that right now. Kennedy may have sometimes been a swing vote, but he still voted with *googles* Alito 86% of the time, Roberts 88% of the time, and Thomas 84% of the time.
---