ASTRO has gone full woke

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
An illegal practice that used to be evidence of systemic racism in the United States. Used to be.

The presence of racist people in the South (and, well, everywhere to be frank) does not mean America is systemically racisjhh jobj
My gunninhkj

Hi
Speaking as someone who despises many aspects of the woke movement (e.g. the never ending quest for purity, and never saying anything offensive ever), I do think there is some evidence of systemic racism.

...but I think the controversy lies in a disagreement over lexicon

Racist: a person who persistently and proudly thinks another race is inferior, and routinely acts on these feelings (i.e. KKK, neo-nazis et al.)

Racist act: An act that is derogatory towards a person based on his/her race... where the aggressor need not be a 'racist' as defined above (e.g. saying something offensive, making a race-based assumption and acting on it)

Systemic racism: Where large institutions are organized in a way that, intentionally or not, penalize those of a particular race... and such a system need not employ racists or even anyone who commit racist acts.

Redlining was clearly a horrible practice that was systemically racist, but also required actual racists committing racist acts. While this is now illegal, the consequences persist in other forms of systemic racism. For example, education is heavily dependent on property values (or income, if attending a private school). Because of redlining, black folks were forced to rent rather than buy decades ago, and thus missed the opportunity to accumulate wealth and property and pass this down to their children, who now live in the same low-income communities, with overcrowded schools and substandard resources. Because of the practice of redlining years ago, many black children are getting a poor education today. That is systemic racism. It doesn't mean that parents in rich neighborhoods, teachers, principals, or anyone involved in education is necessarily racist or has ever done anything racist... it just means that way the education system has a propensity to penalize black children.

In my opinion, part of the problem with the woke movement is that it seeks atonement for systemic racism... when they should really be recruiting people to help them fix broken systems.
I don’t fully buy the redlining.
Sure it was discriminatory, but many other groups have suffered worse calamaties and loss of property: Holocaust Jews, Vietnamese boat people etc. In general free market will not discriminate if it means loosing money. 1920s Bank or law firm doesn’t like Jews- ones that hire them -Goldman Sachs/Lehman -now will have competitive advantage. I doubt Liberal leading Jewish/catholic banks are going to leave money on the table by not lending to worthy inner city tenants. When there is money to be made, prejudices almost always go out the window.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don’t fully buy the redlining.
Sure it was discriminatory, but many other groups have suffered worse calamaties and loss of property: Holocaust Jews, Vietnamese boat people etc. In general free market will not discriminate if it means loosing money. 1920s Bank or law firm doesn’t like Jews- ones that hire them -Goldman Sachs/Lehman -now will have competitive advantage. I doubt Liberal leading Jewish/catholic banks are going to leave money on the table by not lending to worthy inner city tenants. When there is money to be made, prejudices almost always go out the window.
Not all discrimination is the same. Jews face a lot of conspiratorial nonsense and are accused of being “sneaky”, but we were not/ are not excluded from financial opportunity. In some respects, we were forced into profitable professions.

Additionallyare plenty of data demonstrating that immigrants had any easier road to entrepreneurship than black folks

Redlining was not borne of the free market... but rather a “not in my backyard” mentality (decidedly anti-market)... and the effects clearly persist today. The existence of other groups who prosper despite different forms of discrimination doesn’t mean we should ignore those who are still in a hole.

When a patient still has bad mucositis at 4 weeks, one wouldn’t simple ignore it because others have take less time to recover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)

Did Kendi say this or is this this journalist's extrapolation of Kendi's basic point?

I agree with Kendi that when you see disparities one should investigate if there is a policy root to these disparities. The idea that policy begets racist attitude and racially disparate outcomes and not the converse is a useful tool to use to avoid easy racism of the gaps arguments. It may also lead you to be a little less free market capitalist. Now Milton Friedman would have your medical license (impediment to the free market).

I would also say that rare events and small populations are not very meaningful for establishing disparities of concern and are very likely to be impacted by upstream selection bias and small numbers statistics. (Lamount's cultural preference is an example. The enormous selection bias that is manifested in self selected populations who have immigrated since fairly non-racist immigration policies were implemented in the 1960s is another example.)

Racial or gender disparities I don't worry about too much (not to say bias can't be present): Nobel prize winners, particle physicists, professional athletes, disproportionate representation in medicine or law by small ethnic groups, Fiji being a world class Rugby nation with less than a million people, Slovenia producing both Dragic and Doncic, professional sports team owners by ethnic group, and most controversially, the small numbers of unarmed people killed by police.

Racial or gender disparities that are concerning to me when seen in large populations: Median or average wealth, life expectancy, income (much less disparity than wealth), incarceration rate, number and physicality of encounters with police, representation in law and medical school, high school and college graduation status, homicide rates and suicide rates.

Examples of rare events in small populations where disparities bother me: Gender disparities in academic leadership or trajectory where immediately upstream academic performance by women is clearly as good or better. Too few black NFL head coaches relative to representation among upstream coaching positions and players.
 
Did Kendi say this or is this this journalist's extrapolation of Kendi's basic point?

I agree with Kendi that when you see disparities one should investigate if there is a policy root to these disparities. The idea that policy begets racist attitude and racially disparate outcomes and not the converse is a useful tool to use to avoid easy racism of the gaps arguments. It may also lead you to be a little less free market capitalist. Now Milton Friedman would have your medical license (impediment to the free market).

I would also say that rare events and small populations are not very meaningful for establishing disparities of concern and are very likely to be impacted by upstream selection bias and small numbers statistics. (Lamount's cultural preference is an example. The enormous selection bias that is manifested in self selected populations who have immigrated since fairly non-racist immigration policies were implemented in the 1960s is another example.)

Racial or gender disparities I don't worry about too much (not to say bias can't be present): Nobel prize winners, particle physicists, professional athletes, disproportionate representation in medicine or law by small ethnic groups, Fiji being a world class Rugby nation with less than a million people, Slovenia producing both Dragic and Doncic, professional sports team owners by ethnic group, and most controversially, the small numbers of unarmed people killed by police.

Racial or gender disparities that are concerning to me when seen in large populations: Median or average wealth, life expectancy, income (much less disparity than wealth), incarceration rate, number and physicality of encounters with police, representation in law and medical school, high school and college graduation status, homicide rates and suicide rates.

Examples of rare events in small populations where disparities bother me: Gender disparities in academic leadership or trajectory where immediately upstream academic performance by women is clearly as good or better. Too few black NFL head coaches relative to representation among upstream coaching positions and players.
You started by saying you don’t like racism of the gaps arguments and then made one

disparity is not a problem, racial discrimination is a problem. You can use one to find a situation worth investigating for the second but it’s not a problem in and of itself
 
You started by saying you don’t like racism of the gaps arguments and then made one

disparity is not a problem, racial discrimination is a problem. You can use one to find a situation worth investigating for the second but it’s not a problem in and of itself
Where is the racism of the gaps argument?
 
Where is the racism of the gaps argument?
You said
Examples of rare events in small populations where disparities bother me: Gender disparities in academic leadership or trajectory where immediately upstream academic performance by women is clearly as good or better. Too few black NFL head coaches relative to representation among upstream coaching positions and players.
 
Redlining was clearly a horrible practice that was systemically racist, but also required actual racists committing racist acts. While this is now illegal, the consequences persist in other forms of systemic racism. For example, education is heavily dependent on property values (or income, if attending a private school). Because of redlining, black folks were forced to rent rather than buy decades ago, and thus missed the opportunity to accumulate wealth and property and pass this down to their children, who now live in the same low-income communities, with overcrowded schools and substandard resources. Because of the practice of redlining years ago, many black children are getting a poor education today. That is systemic racism. It doesn't mean that parents in rich neighborhoods, teachers, principals, or anyone involved in education is necessarily racist or has ever done anything racist... it just means that way the education system has a propensity to penalize black children.

In my opinion, part of the problem with the woke movement is that it seeks atonement for systemic racism... when they should really be recruiting people to help them fix broken systems.

“The second factor offered as an explanation for the wealth gap is the exclusion of blacks from a set of New Deal policies designed to promote homeownership, income growth, and wealth accrual. After World War II, whites received the vast majority of government-backed mortgage loans.4 By the time the civil rights gains of the 1960s made these loans available to blacks, it was too late—the crucial economic boom of the previous two decades, during which housing values rapidly appreciated, had already passed, and blacks, reeling from the effects of redlining and income suppression, couldn’t enter the housing market at its new prices.5 Wealth—in the form of property and inheritances transferred from parent to child—became a birthright for whites. Meanwhile, deprived of such wealth transfers, poverty became a permanent trap for blacks.6

But this story, though based in truth, has been massaged to give the false impression that benevolence from the state is a prerequisite for wealth accrual. The account even contains some factual errors. Rothstein, for instance, falsely claims that “African American incomes didn’t take off until the 1960s,”7 and that “black workers did not share in the income gains that [white] blue collar workers realized” in the mid-twentieth century.8 Although it is true that the median income of white men more than tripled between 1939 and 1960 (rising from 1,112 dollars to 5,137 dollars), the median income of black men more than quintupled (rising from 460 dollars to 3,075 dollars).9 Black women, too, saw their incomes grow at a faster rate than white women over the same timespan.10 Baradaran makes the same mistake in her description of life for blacks in the 1940s and 50s: “poverty led to institutional breakdown, which led to more poverty.”11 But between 1940 and 1960 the black poverty rate fell from 87 percent to 47 percent, before any significant civil rights gains were made.12

The prevailing progressive narrative also gives short shrift to the history of immigrant groups succeeding in the face of racist hostility and without help from the government. Baradaran, for instance, criticizes the “pervasive myth that immigrant success was based purely on individual work ethic.” To the contrary, she claims, “most immigrants’ bootstraps had been provided to them by the government.”13

But history tells a different story. Starting with the California Alien Land Law of 1913, fourteen states passed laws preventing Japanese-American peasant farmers from owning land and property. These laws existed until 1952, when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. Add to this the internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II, and it’s fair to say that the Japanese were given no bootstraps in America. Nevertheless, by 1970 census data showed Japanese-Americans out-earning Anglo-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Polish-Americans.14 For Asian-Americans on the whole, an analysis of wealth data from 1989 to 2013 predicted that their “median wealth soon will surpass the white median level.” If wealth differences were largely explained by America’s history of favoring certain groups over others, then it would be hard to explain why Asian-Americans, who were never favored, are on track to become wealthier than whites.”

 
I think we are using this term in almost opposite ways. By "racism of the gaps"argument, I meant that the disparity is explained by an understanding of inherent racial difference. I think you are referring to the idea that racism is blamed for disparities when the evidence for racism is limited.

The trick of Kendi's argument, which I am fine with, is that he is saying you have to make a hard and essentially binary racial judgement when faced with racial disparities. The disparity is either the result of inherent racial differences, and if you believe this, you are a racist, which is accurate. Or, the disparity is the result of policy (maybe in a complicated way) and should be addressed through action.

I brought up these final examples, because while they are rare events in small populations, the immediate upstream factors indicate a very diverse talent pool. That makes it less likely to me that there are benign reasons for under representation.
 
I think we are using this term in almost opposite ways. By "racism of the gaps"argument, I meant that the disparity is explained by an understanding of inherent racial difference. I think you are referring to the idea that racism is blamed for disparities when the evidence for racism is limited.

The trick of Kendi's argument, which I am fine with, is that he is saying you have to make a hard and essentially binary racial judgement when faced with racial disparities. The disparity is either the result of inherent racial differences, and if you believe this, you are a racist, which is accurate. Or, the disparity is the result of policy (maybe in a complicated way) and should be addressed through action.

I brought up these final examples, because while they are rare events in small populations, the immediate upstream factors indicate a very diverse talent pool. That makes it less likely to me that there are benign reasons for under representation.
I know the term. The argument is if there are differences, someone is racist. You’re either racist for thinking racism didn’t cause it or racism caused it. It’s a crap argument

if you want to call something or someone racist, prove it. It’s a big accusation
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Redlining was not borne of the free market... but rather a “not in my backyard” mentality (decidedly anti-market)... and the effects clearly persist today.

It doesn’t seem reasonable that wealthy and very liberal Jewish bankers left money on the table because they didn’t want blacks owning property in Harlem (or the 99.999% of the us neighborhoods where the senior bank executives don’t live) due to “not in my backyard” concerns. Every single bank uniformly just turned down free money/profit.
 
It doesn’t seem reasonable that wealthy and very liberal Jewish bankers left money on the table because they didn’t want blacks owning property in Harlem (or the 99.999% of the us neighborhoods where the senior bank executives don’t live) due to “not in my backyard” concerns. Every single bank uniformly just turned down free money/profit.

It wasn’t bankers (Jewish or otherwise) spontaneously, it was a deliberate campaign by the FHA in the 1930s. Ergo, systemic racism.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know the term. The argument is if there are differences, someone is racist. You’re either racist for thinking racism didn’t cause it or racism caused it. It’s a crap argument

if you want to call something or someone racist, prove it. It’s a big accusation
How do you prove someone or something is racist?
 
It wasn’t bankers (Jewish or otherwise) spontaneously, it was a deliberate campaign by the FHA in the 1930s. Ergo, systemic racism.
We know that there was systemic racism pre civil rights by definition. The question is whether that explains all the discrepancies today. Being denied a loan seems to set you back more than Aushwitz?
Banks were not prohibited from lending to blacks as far as I can tell, and if you tell me there was profit to be had, why did the bankers (I specify Jewish ones because they tended to be overwhelmingly socially liberal and themselves were excluded from J.P. Morgan type places) not go for it.
 
Last edited:
Mere accusation should be sufficient, or if you disagree with someone like Kendi. It is the new pedophilia.
You can jump to the other extreme if you'd like, but it really gets us nowhere. The dictionary definition of racism includes the word action, but also belief, and in the absence of a person explicitly stating their beliefs or system explicitly stating it's intent, I'm not sure how you ever prove them. Perhaps there's room for reasonable people to decide when a system is racist.

JK. I know there's not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
We know that there was systemic racism pre civil rights by definition. The question is whether that explains all the discrepancies today. Being denied a loan seems to set you back more than Aushwitz?
Banks were not prohibited from lending to blacks as far as I can tell, and if you tell me there was profit to be made, why did the bankers (I specify Jewish ones because they tended to be overwhelmingly socially liberal) not go for it.

...because the FHA would insure homes in white neighborhoods but not in black neighborhoods, and would subsidize contractors to build homes only if they agreed not to sell to blacks.

It was only riskier for banks to lend to blacks because the federal government refused to ensure blacks’ loans. Blacks were excluded from buying homes in certain neighborhoods because the federal government paid builders to promise not to sell to them. If that isn’t systemic racism, how would define it?
 
...because the FHA would insure homes in white neighborhoods but not in black neighborhoods, and would subsidize contractors to build homes only if they agreed not to sell to blacks.

It was only riskier for banks to lend to blacks because the federal government refused to ensure blacks’ loans. Blacks were excluded from buying homes in certain neighborhoods because the federal government paid builders to promise not to sell to them. If that isn’t systemic racism, how would define it?
I completely agree that is systemic racism- how could you not. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the extent of its impact on future generations who were born many years later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I completely agree that is systemic racism- how could you not. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on the extent of its impact on future generations who were born many years later.
If traditional black neighborhoods were stuck under and near interstate exchanges in the worst parts of town through redlining, how is that magically fixed when redlining is no longer done?

House is the most important generational wealth asset for the lower/middle class and by definition blacks were stuck with the worst stock as RE is all about location
 
If traditional black neighborhoods were stuck under and near interstate exchanges in the worst parts of town through redlining, how is that magically fixed when redlining is no longer done?

House is the most important generational wealth asset for the lower/middle class and by definition blacks were stuck with the worst stock as RE is all about location
Clearly redlining is an injustice, but
would argue that family/social value placed on educational advancement far greater than anything else. immigrants from crowded tenaments in nyc and other big cities who had no property ownership largely prospered and advanced. CUNY graduated 13 Nobel prize winners.
 
Last edited:
Right next to downtown in the heart of major american cities... But gentrification is racist too?

If traditional black neighborhoods were stuck under and near interstate exchanges in the worst parts of town through redlining, how is that magically fixed when redlining is no longer done?

House is the most important generational wealth asset for the lower/middle class and by definition blacks were stuck with the worst stock as RE is all about location
 
And this discussion shows why this talk is a smart (sinister) move by ASTRO.

Social justice is absolutely worthy cause,but highlighting a society instead of speciality specific issues provides a great distraction from the APM, oversupply and stress on young physicians, and absolutely atrocious abuse of the residency system to benefit older physicians and hospital networks with no organic benefit for society, especially as CMS makes supervision rules looser and looser.

Astro wins - they keep the young guys and gals trampled for another annual meeting and score points for shifting attention while not lifting a finger to manage their own issues. Also not sure how this plays into their “the rural area is underserved” argument after the last work force survey, but we all knew they really didn’t care about that. Sure don’t see any plenaries on identifying ways to recruit for these communities. brilliant political move by Astro that tells you everything you need to know about their motivations
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
And this discussion shows why this talk is a smart (sinister) move by ASTRO.

Social justice is absolutely worthy cause,but highlighting a society instead of speciality specific issues provides a great distraction from the APM, oversupply and stress on young physicians, and absolutely atrocious abuse of the residency system to benefit older physicians and hospital networks with no organic benefit for society, especially as CMS makes supervision rules looser and looser.

Astro wins - they keep the young guys and gals trampled for another annual meeting and score points for shifting attention while not lifting a finger to manage their own issues. Also not sure how this plays into their “the rural area is underserved” argument after the last work force survey, but we all knew they really didn’t care about that. Sure don’t see any plenaries on identifying ways to recruit for these communities. brilliant political move by Astro that tells you everything you need to know about their motivations
But of course. Cheap political tactic. I expect nothing less.
 
And this discussion shows why this talk is a smart (sinister) move by ASTRO.

Social justice is absolutely worthy cause,but highlighting a society instead of speciality specific issues provides a great distraction from the APM, oversupply and stress on young physicians, and absolutely atrocious abuse of the residency system to benefit older physicians and hospital networks with no organic benefit for society, especially as CMS makes supervision rules looser and looser.

Astro wins - they keep the young guys and gals trampled for another annual meeting and score points for shifting attention while not lifting a finger to manage their own issues. Also not sure how this plays into their “the rural area is underserved” argument after the last work force survey, but we all knew they really didn’t care about that. Sure don’t see any plenaries on identifying ways to recruit for these communities. brilliant political move by Astro that tells you everything you need to know about their motivations

It reminds me of that always sunny episode where frank and Dennis deliberately come up with controversial topics to avoid talking about real issues in the bar. I think it’s sweet dee gets audited or something.
 
And this discussion shows why this talk is a smart (sinister) move by ASTRO.

Social justice is absolutely worthy cause,but highlighting a society instead of speciality specific issues provides a great distraction from the APM, oversupply and stress on young physicians, and absolutely atrocious abuse of the residency system to benefit older physicians and hospital networks with no organic benefit for society, especially as CMS makes supervision rules looser and looser.

Astro wins - they keep the young guys and gals trampled for another annual meeting and score points for shifting attention while not lifting a finger to manage their own issues. Also not sure how this plays into their “the rural area is underserved” argument after the last work force survey, but we all knew they really didn’t care about that. Sure don’t see any plenaries on identifying ways to recruit for these communities. brilliant political move by Astro that tells you everything you need to know about their motivations
Couldn’t agree more. Also to bring in a Marxist for keynote is such poor taste. Really only way to ever implement Marxism/end capitalism would be violent overthrow of current system with mass death.
 
Still pretty dumpy areas in most of the cities I've been to. No one wants to live under, next to an interstate. Do you?
But when those places get bought out and renovated (with subsequent increased prices) the demographics change, they got told they are racist for breaking up a neighborhood
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But when those places get bought out and renovated (with subsequent increased prices) the demographics change, they got told they are racist for breaking up a neighborhood
Let me know when that happens.... Plenty of homeless still living around the interchanges I've seen. Yuppies don't like it
 
But when those places get bought out and renovated (with subsequent increased prices) the demographics change, they got told they are racist for breaking up a neighborhood
Or when a trillion dollar company -Amazon- wants to build headquarters in such a neigheborhood and provide tens of billions in jobs, that a certain city really needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If traditional black neighborhoods were stuck under and near interstate exchanges in the worst parts of town through redlining, how is that magically fixed when redlining is no longer done?

House is the most important generational wealth asset for the lower/middle class and by definition blacks were stuck with the worst stock as RE is all about location

You seem very concerned about the practices of redlining that occurred 50+ years ago and the fallout that is still occurring today. You post about it all the time.

The fair housing act was passed in 1968.

You are advocating for active intervention via heavy-handed redistribution of opportunity by the federal government to address these historical injustices, not just levelling the playing field in terms of legal barriers and leaving it up to personal responsibility and decision making. There's an argument to made there, sure. So what's the argument? What's the solution? I'm still waiting to hear if you are willing to give up your PP job to a URM rad onc resident as part of an active campaign to fight systemic racism in radiation oncology. And whether you are willing to welcome a low income minority family in your gated neighborhood as part of an active campaign to fight systemic racism in housing. And whether you are willing to send your kids to public school where kids are bussed in to create diversity as part of an active campaign to fight systemic racism in education. Never did get an answer to that.

What's your solution to this problem you mention of blacks not having as valuable property as whites, asians, and other immigrant groups to pass down to their children? Perhaps if the government paid your estate a reasonable percentage of your houses fair makert value when you died, say like 60%, and they handed the deed over to a black family with less assets? Does this seem like a good and fair solution to you? I don't know, I'm just coming up with ideas off the top of my head, because your side never really poses solutions. I've got no idea what you actually want to do about it. To me, it seems by far the most important number one tangeable thing you want to do is vote Trump (or 45, DJT, orange man, etc as you and the crowd of "The View" like to refer to our president as) out of office (correct me if I'm wrong). Does that fix these problems you keep bringing up? Obama was in office for 8 years. Go back to the way it was under Obama? You all just point out problems and declare moral victory and move on to find the next problem to virtue signal over.

Lots of groups (often using clever three letter acronyms for example) want to actively fix the birth lottery. Their solution involves communal child-raising so that those lucky enough to be born into good families don't have a leg up. Non-insane people are usually appalled to learn this.
 
Last edited:
Lots of groups (often using clever three letter acronyms for example) want to actively fix the birth lottery. Their solution involves communal child-raising so that those lucky enough to be born into good families don't have a leg up. Non-insane people are usually appalled to learn this.
Is this true? I have read the BLM manifesto. The reference to the nuclear family is clearly one where they are saying that they will support single parents who want to commit to BLM advocacy by assisting with child rearing. I'm not sure if this is advocating the destruction of the nuclear family. Please let me know if I'm reading this wrong.

Your references to personal sacrifice are important and it is hard to make these. Not sure how one virtue signals on an anonymous board. I don't think gator or anyone else is trying to accrue social capital here. Talking about virtue is good and struggling with the moral problem of wealth is good in my opinion. It is post-modern (a criticism often thrown at the left) to dismiss virtue all together.

I think there is good data to indicate that integration helps underrepresented minorities. I'm fine with busing in to good schools and more afraid of busing kids out to bad ones. Hippocrite? Sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is this true? I have read the BLM manifesto. The reference to the nuclear family is clearly one where they are saying that they will support single parents who want to commit to BLM advocacy by assisting with child rearing. I'm not sure if this is advocating the destruction of the nuclear family. Please let me know if I'm reading this wrong.

Your references to personal sacrifice are important and it is hard to make these. Not sure how one virtue signals on an anonymous board. I don't think gator or anyone else is trying to accrue social capital here. Talking about virtue is good and struggling with the moral problem of wealth is good in my opinion. It is post-modern (a criticism often thrown at the left) to dismiss virtue all together.

I think there is good data to indicate that integration helps underrepresented minorities. I'm fine with busing in to good schools and more afraid of busing kids out to bad ones. Hippocrite? Sure.

That's interesting. The "what we believe" section seems to have disappeared from their website. Google turns up the relevant passage:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,"

Perhaps they changed their mind and realized that this was too extreme and that the traditional Western nuclear family has many positive qualities for society.
Or perhaps they realized this probably wouldn't help their supported candidates in the upcoming election among moderates or really not anyone on the extreme left.
I have no doubt there are some involved (based on writings and interviews you can see on youtube) that really are that extreme and are advocating for the destruction of the nuclear family and anything traditionally Western/capitalistic in society. I would guess the vast majority of their supporters mean well and don't actually go this far or even know that the group has said stuff like this.

A lot of times when people virtue signal, they are doing it for the sake of their own ego. If they can simply verbalize and recognize a problem like redlining or systemic racism and say these words out loud, then it helps resolve cognitive dissonance. In that regard, it doesn't really matter if you're doing it on Twitter linked to your own name or on an anonymous forum account. Appreciate you being honest though. The white woke liberal problem is becoming well known where nobody wants to put any skin in the game, put their money where the mouth is, etc. Sure, we'll protest and tear up the streets. Just don't do it in the nice neighborhoods -- we need the police there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's interesting. The "what we believe" section seems to have disappeared from their website. Google turns up the relevant passage:

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,"

Perhaps they changed their mind and realized that this was too extreme and that the traditional Western nuclear family has many positive qualities for society.
Or perhaps they realized this probably wouldn't help their supported candidates in the upcoming election among moderates or really not anyone on the extreme left.
I have no doubt there are some involved (based on writings and interviews you can see on youtube) that really are that extreme and are advocating for the destruction of the nuclear family and anything traditionally Western/capitalistic in society. I would guess the vast majority of their supporters mean well and don't actually go this far or even know that the group has said stuff like this.

A lot of times when people virtue signal, they are doing it for the sake of their own ego. If they can simply verbalize and recognize a problem like redlining or systemic racism and say these words out loud, then it helps resolve cognitive dissonance. In that regard, it doesn't really matter if you're doing it on Twitter linked to your own name or on an anonymous forum account. Appreciate you being honest though. The white woke liberal problem is becoming well known where nobody wants to put any skin in the game, put their money where the mouth is, etc. Sure, we'll protest and tear up the streets. Just don't do it in the nice neighborhoods -- we need the police there.
it seems they backed off anouncing that one because it got so much bad press
 
Or when a trillion dollar company -Amazon- wants to build headquarters in such a neigheborhood and provide tens of billions in jobs, that a certain city really needs.
Amazon is that company that AOC and 45 can love to hate together. It's amazing how much a company that simply built the best mousetrap around had generated such animosity from the entire political spectrum. The penalty of success i guess

They literally helped large swaths of society through the Pandemic.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Amazon is that company that AOC and 45 can love to hate together. It's amazing how much a company that simply built the best mousetrap around had generated such animosity from the entire political spectrum. The penalty of success i guess

They literally helped large swaths of society through the Pandemic.

A lot of billionaires in USA became billionaires by making my life better. This is not true in many other countries and AOC doesn’t seem to understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
A lot of billionaires in USA became billionaires by making my life better. This is not true in many other countries and AOC doesn’t seem to understand that.
Apparently neither does 45 when it comes to how much revenue Amazon generates for the USPS. Stupidity isn't confined to one political party.

Anyways, i digress... Amazon has become a victim of its own massive success, and seems to get hated all around for it. I do think redder states have been smarter about taking the opportunities from them... Ky had one of their first fulfillment centers iirc
 
Last edited:
A lot of billionaires in USA became billionaires by making my life better. This is not true in many other countries and AOC doesn’t seem to understand that.

...not sure that most Americans could agree
1600652938829.jpeg
 
I’m assuming that adhering to his requests for how to prove one is “antiracist” is part of not being racist.

So, do what I say or you are a racist

It seems others interpret it that way too...

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you want a higher share of the income, provide a higher share of the profitable activity. That chart is meaningless

I guess I lack the propensity for magical thinking required to honestly believe that the free hand of the market always "knows" best.

Capitalism is like evolution... but when the only law of the land is 'survival of the fittest', sometimes the virus wins (e.g. pharma bro).... and that's where politics steps in.

This isn't the first time we had an oligarchy in the US... but it is worth bearing in mind that the "guided age" was followed shortly thereafter by the "progressive era".

You may think that market value is sacrosanct, but 50% of Americans are likely not going to similarly consider themselves worthless. They are getting poorer, angrier, and they aren't going anywhere. You better HOPE for a progressive era, because this very same story has ended differently in France, Russia, and in the Arab Spring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I’m assuming that adhering to his requests for how to prove one is “antiracist” is part of not being racist.

So, do what I say or you are a racist

I don't care if Ibram X. Kendi thinks I'm racist.
Not caring and not falling for his blackmail scheme is all we've got.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
I guess I lack the propensity for magical thinking required to honestly believe that the free hand of the market always "knows" best.

Capitalism is like evolution... but when the only law of the land is 'survival of the fittest', sometimes the virus wins (e.g. pharma bro).... and that's where politics steps in.

This isn't the first time we had an oligarchy in the US... but it is worth bearing in mind that the "guided age" was followed shortly thereafter by the "progressive era".

You may think that market value is sacrosanct, but 50% of Americans are likely not going to similarly consider themselves worthless. They are getting poorer, angrier, and they aren't going anywhere. You better HOPE for a progressive era, because this very same story has ended differently in France, Russia, and in the Arab Spring.
I actually don’t think market or capitalism is sacrosanct. It fails in many instances including externalities and most relevantly, health care (information assymetry). Diff between gilded age and today is that bill gates, Elon musk, Steve Job types came up with products to improve our lives, not exploit resources or form conglometates. If someone invents some novel game changing product that everyone wants, I don’t begrudge them for getting rich off it. Everyone benefited. Kicking Amazon out of brooklyn because you don’t like billionaires is what makes people support trump.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I guess I lack the propensity for magical thinking required to honestly believe that the free hand of the market always "knows" best.

Capitalism is like evolution... but when the only law of the land is 'survival of the fittest', sometimes the virus wins (e.g. pharma bro).... and that's where politics steps in.

This isn't the first time we had an oligarchy in the US... but it is worth bearing in mind that the "guided age" was followed shortly thereafter by the "progressive era".

You may think that market value is sacrosanct, but 50% of Americans are likely not going to similarly consider themselves worthless. They are getting poorer, angrier, and they aren't going anywhere. You better HOPE for a progressive era, because this very same story has ended differently in France, Russia, and in the Arab Spring.

The problem with capitalism in the US is that we have crony capitalism with FAR too much government intervention. The RO-APM, with its carving out of 11 preferred institutions and blatant favoring of drug companies, is a perfect example. We need fewer government intervention in the economy, fewer printing of money, and fewer socialist programs.

And, when it comes to your bringing up revolution...every war game re: a Civil War between the Left and the Right the US government has ever run ends with a victory for the Right in less than a month. Food production is limited almost exclusively to rural, conservative areas, and the cities don't have more than ~ 1 week of food storage on the shelves. Add in the greater number of guns in conservatives' hands and the fact that 60% of the military voted for Trump in the last election, and it's really not even close.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
I don't care if Ibram X. Kendi thinks I'm racist.
Not caring and not falling for his blackmail scheme is all we've got.
Just can’t get over that Astro invited a Marxist, with fascist leanings- confess/agree with him or you are a racist! (Which means you should loose your job and be cancelled)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top