Friday’s Forum
Steven L. Taylor
·
Friday, May 16, 2025
·
115 comments
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
I’m sure the troops will be thrilled.
Trump to house 7,500 soldiers for military parade in government office buildings: Report
This is absolutely remarkable:
A promising genetic treatment tailor-made for a baby born with a rare disorder
CRISPR is such a remarkable advancement, and, notably, its foundation is in the basic research that was until very recently, funded by the federal government.
We can always kick more poor people of Medicaid and SNAP to pay for this. This is becoming the Hunger Games Presidency.
Homeland Security eyes new $50M jet for Noem, Coast Guard officials
Star Wars: The Sequel
Golden Dome’s Price Tag Will Likely Exceed Half a Trillion Dollars, Space Force Chief Says
That’s an understatement!
Kristi Noem wants to turn the process to become a citizen into a reality show. (Thanks to LGM for this item.)
Over at The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last (JVL) pushes back on the assumption that the voters lack agency, so we can let them off the hook for giving the green light to the corruption, stupidity, authoritarianism, economic calamity, white supremacy, transphobia, and other ingredients of the current regime. It’s worth delving into the comments, too, where there’s a lively debate about this topic.
JVL poses a big question about self-governance, so I wonder what commenters here think about it.
@Kingdaddy:
The title is misleading–there’s no evidence (yet) that Noem is involved with these discussion (or even knows about the project).Correction. According to the original Daily Mail article:
So first fuck both of them.
The overall idea is absolutely disgusting (not to mention trivialzes an process that the Administration is pushing as sacred):
For fuck sake people, dystopian fiction like The Hunger Games and The Running Man are warnings, NOT product/show development plans!
Here is a pretty interesting exploration of the capabilities of ChatGPT and DeepSeek, ChatGPT can do stuff DeepSeek can’t.
“Adam Tooze”
The heading:
then
much follows, pretty interesting
Joe Don Baker, 89, has died. RIP.
@CSK: Mitchell!
This is worth a read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2025/05/biden-original-sin-decline/682818/
@Matt Bernius:
Oh, the producer totally assures us this show definitely won’t be like The Hunger Games.
The Rump timepiece:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/pricey-trump-edition-watch-ruined-by-hilarious-spelling-flub/
This horse’s ass needs a muzzle. Desperately:
“Has anyone noticed that since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?'”
— Donald J. Trump, May 18, 2025
No, Don, I haven’t noticed.
The other day I was wondering about the roots of our ideas and idealogies. I’m a libby-lib, woke, and DEI thinker. These ideas must have come from deep in my earliest exposures. Then I encountered a picture of Our Gang. I loved those shorts on my TV as a kid, and the characters were definitely DEI. Some boys, a black kid or two, feisty take-no-guff protofeminist girls, and Pete a nonhuman. The first Our Gang shorts were made in 1921. DEI isn’t new; it has always been an American ideal! Mind blown! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/little-rascals-original-cast-happened-105620667.html
@Scott: Given his recent activity, I’m frankly a little surprised he didn’t quarter them in people’s houses. He’s missing a great chance to thumb his nose at the Supreme Court again.
@Scott: Given his recent activity, I’m frankly a little surprised he didn’t quarter them in people’s houses. He’s missing a great chance to thumb his nose at the Supreme Court again.
@Jon: In case people don’t get the reference:
https://youtu.be/ECupIhIuei0?si=K4WH6zYhwCM7QjpB
@Slugger: I’ve been watching a lot of recovered episodes of What’s My Line on YouTube. One of the favorite things for them to do is to bring a woman, who is dressed up very nicely, like they did on the show, with a very unorthodox non-feminine job. For instance, a garbage truck driver. (I’ve seen 3 of those, I believe). Or a flight instructor. And so on. It fools the panel every time.
@CSK:
You can hardly blame them for trying to make their tacky product a tad less repulsive.
@CSK:
Lol, the moment she does another surprise album drop and/or announces a new tour she will once again be the only subject anyone on-line talks about for months on end.
The last time Swift did a surprise album drop (the Poets album) Sirius XM gave her her own channel for I believe the entire first week the album hit the marketplace, and of course she was involved in a world tour that made her more money than the Big Guy in the Sky, and even brought huge financial windfalls to all the cities that hosted her tour.
Heck, I think Santa Clara County which is close to my neck of the woods, as I am in Alameda County, CA, made her the Mayor during the days she was performing in Levi Stadium, and I bet she was given the honor of being a temp Mayor in plenty of other geographies that she had concerts in (lol). If only he was 1/100th as genuinely popular as Taylor Swift.
ETA: I say all this as someone who is just a casual listener of her music, if it is on the radio I do not actively yell at folks to turn it off, turn it off, lol!! However, you would have to be living under an isolated rock in the remotest section of Siberia not to have been aware of how beloved Taylor Swift is as a celebrity musician.
@inhumans99:
It’s amusing that Trump would think she’s not hot just because he says so.
Seriously, it’s so embarrassing to have as president someone who spouts crap like this.
ETA: Trump is also threatening Bruce Springsteen.
@Slugger: Equality has long been a goal for Americans, a lot of them anyway. The modern definition of equity means using inequality to achieve equality, which is what a lot of people object to.
The orange rapist wrote this on Truth Social this morning:
Not the sign of a sound mind. Childish, weird, deranged, classless and beneath the dignity of the presidency. Trump is still immature, unqualified and unfit.
Those who voted for and support him do have agency, and their choices are cringe.
@Fortune:
The modern definition according to who? You MAGAt’s? GTFOH
@Kingdaddy: So. It’s behind a paywall. I didn’t read the whole thing. From the beginning, and from your summary, I note one thing: We are presented with a binary, a “yes” or “no”.
That is probably inadequate to describe what’s happening. Wildly inadequate. My sister and I know quite a few Trumpers. People we grew up with. People we like.
What she says about them is, “Well, I’m never gonna trust their judgement ever again.” However, they like Trump for reasons that have to do with how the government has failed them. And for reasons that have to do with how they’ve been propagandized in a way that leverages that sense of unhappiness. They are told that lots of people are to blame for their situation, and these are plausible, but lies.
They want a new vision, not the tired, old vision of classic Democrats. They want Bernie (and you know, I was not at all a Bernie supporter. Not one bit. This is not sour grapes from me.)
We are never going to be vindicated in our “Trump is awful” thesis. We need (in the political sphere) to stop trying to win this argument and instead offer a competing vision. A competing story.
For instance, on a front that is near and dear to me – I said to a friend of mine yesterday (she was raised Catholic) that spending two weeks around a same-sex couple will make you realize that there’s nothing going on there that doesn’t go on with every hetero couple. People are people, and love is hard.
Likewise, people who have social contact with trans people in a constructive way don’t take very long to figure out that there’s nothing really threatening going on here at all. Arguing about this reinforces the old belief. Living it moves things forward.
Likewise with national policy. We have some people out there articulating a new vision, we need more.
It is also the case that we have been left in the dust as regards political material – propaganda if you will – and its delivery technology. Part of the issue is money. Democrats could have more money from me if they would bother to tell me what they are gonna do with it, and it turned out to be something I liked. But they don’t.
There will be no breakthrough. There will be no capitulation. There is, and will continue to be, a slow erosion of support. That’s how this stuff works.
Describing your opponents as “evil” gives you an excuse to not reach out to them, to not try to understand them. I do not endorse this.
This is from a guy who doesn’t engage with certain comments and commenters here. This is because they want me to debate things that aren’t up for debate. Because debate doesn’t do anything meaningful. It isn’t going to change their mind. That’s not what they are here for. They know everything, how could they ever learn anything?
These sorts of commenters do not represent the median Trump voter, who is very much inclined to say (about Trump), “I wish he’d keep his mouth shut.”
@Daryl: I asked Google AI “what does equity mean in dei”. It replied:
Do you have a problem with the definition?
Trump’s Gestapo is all worked up because Comey posted an image that showed an “86” and “47.” They claim “86” is a call for violence.
https://apnews.com/article/comey-trump-threat-shells-deleted-post-39b37b1d36c0463d3dad41a3d1339d4e
They really are very thin-skinned Nazis.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/eighty-six-meaning-origin
@Fortune:
AI?!?
At any rate that bears no relation, at all, you your claim. The distortion you claimed is how people like you rationalize your mediocrity.
Posting this analysis from Science on the disprate impact of so-called “race neutral” NSF grant cuts for no apparent reason:
Of course, anyone well read on the history of science (see for example the works of Thomas Kuhn) would know that science is never “just science.”
I’m not going to address intent (i.e. was this an effort to discriminate against researchers of certain background). However the math is clear that the impact is disparate and disproportional. Which is also NOT in keeping with the NSF’s stated goals:
Weird how the cuts are having the exact opposite effect of those goals.
But that’s what happens when you actually look at the details versus looking at everything from a black and white perspective.
@Kingdaddy: 🙂
Stoner Linda Evans, everything young me ever wanted from life.
@Daryl: Don’t worry about where the definition came from, you wanted something non-MAGA and I think AI counts. Do you accept the description or not?
@Scott: Oh boy!!! The May Day parade in Red Square!!! I’ve always wondered what it’s like. Maybe I’ll go to see this one.
@CSK: There’s a gift link in Dr. Taylor’s post about age limits for office (for people who don’t have an Atlantic subscription.
@just nutha:
Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift should do a joint free concert on June 14. I’m sure that would be a much bigger draw.
@CSK: So your suggestion from yesterday of having Kristi shoot the “eliminated” players on live TV was rejected? Sooooooo sad. :*(
@CSK: The concert needs to be live streamed.
@just nutha:
I guess it was. Frankly, I’m surprised. Noem seems to enjoy shooting living creatures.
@Fortune:
Not in its entirety, no.
But I do stand by your mediocrity.
@CSK: Make it for the members of the armed forces and I guarantee which one our military will attend.
Various ways gullible mark DJT gets himself played:
“Link”
@Matt Bernius:
And today it comes out that the most positive fellowship for underrepresented scientists in the biological sciences, HHMI’s Hannah Gray fellowship, is vanishing effective immediately. This returns HHMI to its previous role as a country club for science’s 1%
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the president of the United States:
Donald Trump has launched another attack on Taylor Swift via his social media platform, Truth Social.
“Has anyone noticed that, since I said “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,” she’s no longer “HOT?” he wrote on the site.
I didn’t know that we had elected a teenage “mean girl” as POTUS. Nice to see he’s concentrating on the important things. Who cares that we effectively have no FEMA as hurricane season approaches.
@CSK:
He keeps showing us his brain just no longer working right.
@Daryl:
Now the “Victim-in-Chief” is on the Comey/Assassination bandwagon.
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1923352571009278218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1923352571009278218%7Ctwgr%5E6253766049daa4c2b64a4364ad59a24e2b0070b3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdonald-trump-james-comey-calling-for-assassination_n_68274425e4b0a2fcab72661d
Which is all very entertaining because Comey is arguably the biggest cause of us being stuck with Trump in the first place.
@charontwo:
It’s really pretty funny because it will cost >$400M to upgrade it to AF-1 Spec, take most of his remaining term to complete, then who knows how much $ and time to de-commission it for civilian use.
All on the taxpayers dime.
Where is DOGE on this???
@Daryl: Give a definition we can both accept.
@DK: Did Trump really call a guy who’s sold 150 MILLION records “overrated” and say he’s “not a talented guy?”
If Trump wants to talk about ratings, maybe he should worry about his own poll ratings, which are declining quite rapidly.
@Han: I’m surprised he didn’t house them at one of his golf courses. And charged the government for it.
@charontwo:
I related a bunch of the misadventures by his majesty, Manuel Andres 0, in selling Mexico’s presidential plane. At one point he seriously suggested a raffle through the National Lottery. eventually it was sold to Tajikistan at a huge loss two years ago.
Mexico’s plane was a 787, complete with private accommodations and room for hangers on and press, carrying about 80 passengers all told. It was a reasonable choice insofar as it has the range to fly unrefueled to Asia and Europe. Even if it was too much for a middle income country. The prior plane was a 757, which had to make fueling stops on the way to Europe and Asia.
The 787, for all its many issues, is one of Boeing’s best sellers, and the backlog on it is huge. You’d think any that appear in the second hand market would draw interest. It kind of did, but it died when the cost of converting a customized interior back to passenger service was considered.
That last goes even more so for a 747. Airlines have retired quad-jets in great numbers, plus Boeing and Airbus no longer make them for commercial service (I’m not clear on the prevalence of military transport aircraft with four jet engines). Few airlines would be interested, and the cost of converting it for passenger service would be even higher. Cargo airlines might want it, but the cost of conversion again is too high. For one thing, the base passenger version doesn’t have a nose hatch for oversize freight, which is the big selling point for the 747-8F, and all prior B747 iterations down to the very first one in the late 60s.
@Fortune: Do you have a problem with a level playing field?
@Fortune:
You have a clear history of living in your own (MAGA) reality, so it’s doubtful a definition from the real world would be acceptable to you.
You may excuse yourself, now.
@CSK:
Did a time warp occur while I was taking my daily nap? Today is only May 16.
@Han:
A level playing field puts the mediocre at a distinct disadvantage.
@Han:
It depends how, but I don’t want the government ever trying to balance or unbalance something on the basis of race, and I don’t believe we can determine how unbalanced an opportunity is on the basis of the outcome.
@Bill Jempty:
I hit the wrong key, and didn’t notice till the edit time had passed. Sorry about that. I meant May 16.
@Kathy:
Interesting, does AF-1 have a nose-hatch for the motorcade, etc??
@Daryl:
Words mean things. Fortune ISN’T living in MAGA or supporting MAGA.
He is a pretty standard Republican/Libertarian Social Conservative. It just happens there is a lot of overlap in those two groups. The key difference is that Fortune isn’t a Trump supporter.
His support is various Trump administration policies are more aligned with his social conservatism than any support of Trump.
@Fortune:
Legit question: if outcomes don’t matter then what alternative do you suggest?
If we know the current outcomes show clear disproportionate results based on race, how can we not focus on outcomes?
@Matt Bernius: I wish we could know what’s proportionate, and fix it. Since we can’t, we could either enforce a state-sponsored discriminaton on the basis of outcome, or aim to do a reasonable job at equality of opportunity – which in some cases will mean doing nothing. There’s no third option.
@Matt Bernius:
It doesn’t really change my meaning.
This is a prime example of the ghoulish, grotesque Christian extremism that never should have been allowed to happen. Elections do matter and families get crushed.
“A pregnant woman in Georgia who was declared brain dead after a medical emergency has been on life support for three months to let the fetus grow enough to be delivered, a move her family says a hospital told them was required under the state’s strict anti-abortion law.
With her due date still more than three months away, it could be one of the longest such pregnancies. Her family is upset that Georgia’s law that restricts abortion once cardiac activity is detected doesn’t allow relatives to have a say in whether a pregnant woman is kept on life support.
Georgia’s so-called “heartbeat law” is among the restrictive abortion statutes that have been put in place in many conservative states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago.
Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old mother and nurse, was declared brain-dead — meaning she is legally dead — in February, her mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA.
Newkirk said her daughter had intense headaches more than three months ago and went to Atlanta’s Northside Hospital, where she received medication and was released. The next morning, her boyfriend woke to her gasping for air and called 911. Emory University Hospital determined she had blood clots in her brain and she was declared brain-dead.
Newkirk said Smith is now 21 weeks pregnant. Removing breathing tubes and other life-saving devices would likely kill the fetus.
Northside did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. Emory Healthcare said it could not comment on an individual case because of privacy rules, but released a statement saying it “uses consensus from clinical experts, medical literature, and legal guidance to support our providers as they make individualized treatment recommendations in compliance with Georgia’s abortion laws and all other applicable laws. Our top priorities continue to be the safety and wellbeing of the patients we serve.”
Smith’s family says Emory doctors have told them they are not allowed to stop or remove the devices that are keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.
The law was adopted in 2019 but not enforced until after Roe v. Wade was overturned in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, opening the door to state abortion bans. Twelve states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy and three others have bans like Georgia’s that kick in after about six weeks.
Like the others, Georgia’s ban includes an exception if an abortion is necessary to maintain the woman’s life. Those exceptions have been at the heart of legal and political questions, including a major Texas Supreme Court ruling last year that found the ban there applies even when there are major pregnancy complications.
More here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hospital-tells-family-brain-dead-174659952.html
@The Q: The family must hate their grandchild.
@Fortune: Let’s talk about airplanes. 100% of the airplanes gifted to individuals in the US by Middle Eastern states go to white men.
Particularly, white men who were born into wealth, which gave them enormous advantages to become known to the Middle Eastern states, and for the Middle Eastern states to bestow them with airplanes. A massive difference in opportunity.
How do you propose to address this discrepancy in opportunity?
@Gustopher:
Source?
@Daryl:
No. The vehicles, and a lot of support personnel like the Secret Service, fly on Air Force transports separately.
@Fortune:
“Because I disagree with an approach, and I am not interested in exploring others, I want to keep systems I will admit are causing disproportionate unequal results based on race in place is definitely a traditional White American conservative position.
It’s an area where you and I will never reach consensus. But at least you are willing to actually own your support of unequal treatment in the real world because of your commitment to… equal treatment in your perfect mental world.
But points for feeling bad about not being really interested in solving the problem. You must really love those being treated unequally.
Which will perpetuate the inequality forever and ever, and absolutely no one should be okay with that–at all.
The fact that some ARE okay with perpetual inequality speaks to their character, and not in a good way. Relying on bootstrapping to right wrongs that have existed for generations is ridiculous. Prohibiting redlining is a start, but doesn’t make up for multiple generations of lost homeowner equity/ability to build wealth.
Matt and Jen – I don’t support inequality of treatment. It’s my whole point.
@Fortune: I guess edit is nonfunctional today.
If you want to move two things closer together, you can either move one or the other. I’m not ignoring other options, there aren’t any. I support a lot of efforts to improve equality of opportunity, and I believe they’ll steadily erode at the inequality of outcome but yeah I take a stand against governmental discrimination.
@Fortune:
You clearly support on going inequality in outcome though.
And, in fact, you reject attempts to address that.
I mean you just spelled it out. You see that right?
Your stance is “I know people are suffering unequal outcomes, and I am ok with that too protect the system as is out of a call for “equal treatment.”
You see that, right?
Also sorry all about the edit issues. I will look into those nextf.
@Fortune:
Give me an example of one of those cases that had been demonstrated to work.
@Matt Bernius:
Work in a scalable way and reduce racial disparities in outcomes.
What I hear when people talk like what’shisname…
“No matter that minorities of all stripes have suffered disproportionate oppression for the entire history of this nation, beginning even in our founding documents, any solution proposed today must achieve absolute perfection relative to white, straight, males.”
I heard this sort of garbage all the time when I worked with Republicans. The whole “I believe in equality of opportunity and let the outcomes be what they may” is the same thing as saying you’re fine with perpetuating inequality.
Put another way, equality of inputs doesn’t matter if it doesn’t change or affect the outcome. You measure both inputs and outputs, but if the end result isn’t greater equity, you have to do more.
What is being suggested is a very Republican position that amounts to *shrug* oh well we tried, sorry. That’s not good enough to address the actual HARM that has been caused by policies.
Speaking of mediocre white males, MAGA failed to pass the budget bill out of committee today.
Their incompetence is staggering.
@Matt Bernius: You’re asking me to concede my argument by expecting to measure equality of opportunity by outcome. I’m not sure I’d even grant the idea of an approach needing to be scalable, or even distinguishable statistically.
Who could have predicted this?
Trump Pal Kid Rock Forced to Close Nashville Restaurant as Undocumented Staff Bolt Over ICE Raids
@Jen:
Indeed.
But it is an easy dodge to employ if one is a straight, white, Christian, male, since those characteristics have been rewarded more than non-straight, non-white, non-Christian, female.
Generational wealth via who could and could nto get a mortgage based on race is a thing.
How well-educated a person’s parents were matters. And we all know that Black kids and White kids in the 1950s were not getting the same K-12 experience, and we also know that a lot more Whites were going to college than blacks in the 1960s (and more males than females, especially in more lucrative fields).
The list goes on and on and on.
The present is built on the past.
@The Q: I hope the family is sending all of the medical bills to the state. She’s been on life support for three entire months, and is still only halfway through her pregnancy. I’m guessing this is in the multi-million dollar range.
@Fortune:
How else would you measure it?
So you are saying that outcomes don’t matter? How do we judge the effectiveness of any program then?
If so then you are arguing for a fundamentally unserious position. Or a deeply ingorant one.
I’ll add this. I was involved in a lot of hiring in my previous job, and people tend, consciously or unconsciously, to replicate what is comfortable and familiar.
There is a reason that in a league that is predominantly Black (and has been for decades) that most head coaches in the NFL are white.
Heck, the HC of the Dallas Cowboys, Brian Schottenheimer, got his start in coaching, wait for it, because his Dad was a successful NFL coach. If it was all about “merit” would that be the case?
See, also, Kyle Shanahan and Brian Callahan.
More from the past here. Pure merit, right?
The present is built on the past.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Look at you asking us to look at outcomes. They don’t matter!
I mean what do facts tell us? Especially when compared against national ethos.
A national ethos that also existed when Black people were property, women couldn’t vote, and separate was apparently equal.
@Jen:
Who would go to a restaurant with “Big Ass” in its name? Ten to one the cuisine is appalling.
@Matt Bernius: Yeah…
You see, I think that your point is distinction without difference. I’ll cite the “looks like a…” rule. Feel free to disregard my observation as it is only an opinion.
BTW, to put my cards out on the table I do believe and I am happy to produce evidence towards the need for group specific programs in order to deal with the ongoing impact of systemic bias.
I also recognize it’s an imperfect system and it’s often not done as well as it could be. I also firmly believe that allocation of ongoing suffering is more important than enacting “race/gender/group neutral” polices that, when their outcomes are measured, turnout to essentially sustain provable disparities in outcomes based on group.
Social contract theory stipulates that whatever the stakeholders agree to, under whatever system they use to establish agreement, is what should and will be allowed. Ya don’t want ghoulish, grotesque Christian extremism? Then you need to identify what those people support and actively unify around a single alternative. The big tent can be your friend in this, but it’s not a lock.
@Matt Bernius:
I will also say that I understand the opposition to those programs. And how they can make people feel uncomfortable.
And I don’t think the discomfort of individuals outweighs the necessity of addressing ongoing societal wrongs.
@Matt Bernius:
Prove it.
To me, a hallmark of the conservative mind is the failure of imagination. A “I can’t imagine anything better or different, so the only option is the status quo” frame of mind. I think this is why artists and scientist skew largely to the progressive side, as imagination is key in those fields. Exhibit A: Fortune in this very thread.
@Jen: And Republicans are fine with perpetuating inequality. Have been all my life. It’s perfectly natural and socially Darwinistic. How can you expect conservatives to go against what has always been (especially if doing so will disadvantage them)?
@Daryl: Not merely failed. Four of their own refused to go along because there weren’t enough budget cuts. Not incompetent. Insurrectionist.
Friends, this right here is a high water mark in OTB hilarity. The commenter who never answers direct questions and studiously avoids providing evidence want’s Matt, to “prove it.”
Impressive.
Chef’s kiss!
@Fortune:
@Fortune: ” I support a lot of efforts to improve equality of opportunity,”
Such as?
@Fortune: ” I support a lot of efforts to improve equality of opportunity,”
Such as?
@Matt Bernius:
Given that he never posts in good faith, how can you say what he is? The anti-anti-Trumper schtick is commonly used by Trumpers trying to play with “libs.”*
And I think it’s very clear that he isn’t here to engage, he’s here to play with “libs.” Not quite trolling, but trollish.
*: the definition of a lib here is anyone who isn’t right wing.
@wr: education, mentorship, microloans and support for minority-owned businesses – not the only things but I’ve been personally involved in these
@The Q: I kind of don’t care what Georgia does with a warm corpse. It’s icky and ghoulish, and against the wishes of the deceased’s family, but she is dead. I’d rather they respected the family’s wishes, but it falls pretty far down on the list of priorities.
Below the shenanigans where Black folk have to wait in 10 hour lines to vote, for instance.
@Gustopher:
It seems to be imposing a tremendous financial burden on the family.
@Fortune:
Sure. It’s not particularly rocket science.
A lot of it comes from a train of thought that, to your point, prizes the idea that all humans should be treated equally at all times. A lot of that flows out of enlightenment concepts, many of which were subscrive to by key figures in the American revolution and the founding of the country–All men are created equal–and all.
Taken to an extreme, any type of perference for one group over another is anathama to that thinking. Then you add in a strong concept of individualism–that the success or failure an individual is determined by the individual. I also think we could get a bit Weberian in here about how success is also a sign of moral worth, but that is taking us off the core topic.
If you are a strong individualist, the idea of doing anything that explicitly preferences one group over another–or the rights of a group over the rights of an individaul–is unacceptable. That’s also been at the core of a lot of the discussions around college admission issues, where the idea that a seat is being taken away from someone “more deserving.”
This all ties into a lot of ideas about Meritocracy and that people deserve their success (or their failure).
I also will note that there are parallel ideas advanced against race and group based programs by people of color. Anyone who has read Clarence Thomas is familiar with his personal arguments against the Affirmative Action programs that he, himself benefited from. And I do think there is a defensible argument that some people see their own accomplishments as somehow illegitimate based on their participation in these sorts of programs.
Again, that’s a fine opinion for an individual to hold, but it also gets into the issue of pulling up a ladder for an entire group of people after you, yourself, benefited from said ladder.
I’m writing this quickly, so I know I’m missing some of additional threads.
I also think this is a limited viewpoint and while can be true for some people (see, for example, Clarence Thomas) also invalidates the opinion of a lot of people who both benefited from and still supported those programs.
What have I missed? I’m sure there’s also a concern about the government or business picking winners and losers–but that doesn’t really work, largely because that’s already happening.
I guess, depending on you age, you can also draw a line from some of these concepts to the supposedly egalitarian ideals of communism (USSR, CCP, or other branches) and the danger of what happens when you go down to “each according to his needs” and the necessity of government’s role in that. Which gets to another important thread for some people–that any attempt by the government to do this sort of group focused programs necessarily comes at the cost of individual liberty.
I guess that you could also get into the idea that outcome focused policies are somehow Machiavellian. I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
Anyway, all of those are defensible reasons to reject this type of program. And that can be a choice.
As I said, for me those don’t carry enough water to make them ultimately outweigh continuing to perpetuate systems that create disparities in outcomes for the sake of an ideal of equality that we never have met.
I’m willing to accept that ultimate does lead to some inconveniences for people who benefit from the current system.
Why are you so unwilling to accept that your preference to not inconvenience those individuals who benefit from the current system perpetuates early demonstrable disparities in equality? It seems to me you are trying to claim moral superiority without being willing to acknowledge the real world negative impacts of people created by your philosophy.
Oh, of course, I forgot the key one–Let’s roll out the only passage from MLK that conservatives care about:
Again, I think this is something to strive for.
I’ll also point out that EVERYTHING around that speech gets to exactly why we need to be concerned about race based and other group based outcomes and that King was talking about a hopeful future state that could only be reached when those outcome related things had been dealt with.
But you need to read all of his writings and speeches to understand that important context.
At the same time, if that’s the only King that you know, then of course you think that it’s a strong argument against race-based equality programs.
@Matt Bernius: That’s actually pretty good, but since you understand the position, it means your questions above were disingenuous.
The first one was pretty good at least.
@Fortune:
How so?
Or are you mistaking understanding a position with agreeing with a position?
If I held your position, then I would also be willing to admit the costs of other people of the system that I hold. You seem to want to ignore that step of “holding a position.”
You again are very clearly advocating for preserving unequal outcomes in the name of having an equal system. You cannot seem to accept that the presence of very clear unequal outcomes strongly suggests that the “equal system” isn’t equal to begin with.
@Fortune:
That’s fair. The second one was largely me trying to block that quote from coming into the conversation as I have read enough of King’s writings to know how misused that quote has by conservatives when arguing for race-neutral policies.
Dr King was a big believer in evaluating outcomes.
@Fortune:
One other thing that I think I should make clear as it might be the key issue:
I don’t believe in perfect policies. And I think to live is to do harm. Any and every policy is going to enact some level of harm. So I think we need to own the negative impacts of what we advocate for along with the positive ones. And I think we need to be really upfront about those things.
I also don’t think we should ever fool ourselves into believing harm, fraud, waste, or abuse can be fully eliminated from any system. Nor does any position prevent us from having to deal with those icky issues—even though addressing them may make one feel uncomfortable or not fit into one’s own image of oneself.
So I always try my best to own that in my positions. All I ask is that the people I interact with do the same thing–especially if they want to be taken seriously.
So I’m happy to admit that my position on these topics can infringe on the experiences of some individuals. And I believe that is an acceptable choice due to systemic systems of oppression that have shaped the present.
I can understand someone disagreeing with that point. And I expect them—if they claim to be intellectually honest—to admit how their position ultimately helps sustain the demonstrable disparate outcomes of those systems of oppression in the name of what they believe is “equality.”
@Fortune:
Serious request–since I responded to your post with an honest answer–can you PLEASE unpack this for me. I suspect we may have very different understanding of what “disingenuous” means.
@CSK: There are a whole lot of medical bankruptcies in this country. What’s one more?
I’m sure that there will be a pro bono lawyer who gets involved, and sues the hospital for the bills. As there should be. Objectively, this is all horrible.
But small scale horrible in a world with large scale horrors.
I’m just pacing my outrage.
I wish that the President would spend less time worrying about the thoughts of a couple of singers and more time on what Moody’s thinks.
@Mikey: Trump’s polling is ticking back up unfortunately. Could be statistical noise. We’ll know more about June.
Anyway, despite this the opposition is still doing well in state and local elections right now, which bodes well for 2026.
@Jay L Gischer: I’m not sure that exposure is enough in many cases. A lot of people have an “exception” view of people they like, while still holding on to their bigotry.
I shared with my daughter this weekend about a time when I discovered that was true of me. Although it wasn’t something I ever voiced out loud, I developed some definite anti-Muslim prejudices after 9/11. At the same time, there were several Muslims that I knew and liked. “Exceptions,” I thought. “They’ve been living in America and adopted some American values. But the ones living in Islamic countries are backwards and hateful.”
Then I spotted a book at the library with an intriguing title: Banker to the Poor, by future Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. As I read the memoirs of a Bangladeshi man, set in his 91% Muslim home country, I was learning about numerous people committed to human rights and women’s rights whose convictions were grounded in their Islamic faith. And I felt ashamed, because I had stereotyped a billion people in the world, apart from the few “exceptions” that I knew personally.
Many people never have that epiphany. I remember challenging an acquaintance who parroted Trump’s “eating cats and dogs” slander of Haitian immigrants, reminding him that he knew several wonderful Haitian immigrants. “Yeah, but they’re not the same as the ones in Ohio,” was his response.
@Monala:
Thank you for sharing that story. I know it resonates with past experiences I’ve had. It’s really hard to be open to reexamining your priors and, in particular, being really honest with yourself about how we carve out “good ones” exceptions to help justify our prejudices.
One of the things that took me a while to really identify were the number of times I would think or say “You know I’m not [X] but, …” in my earlier life. Even though it wasn’t a ton (especially compared to other people I know and whom I learned it from), it was still way too many. Recognizing that behavior and getting curious about why I felt the need to say it was an important step in my personal development.
@Matt Bernius:
Fortune?
Anyone?
@Matt Bernius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jCO9aU32Mg