Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 396: America's Mid(terms)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Okay attempt to sum up the Paul Pelosi conspiracy.

Paul Pelosi(Age 82) called 911 on himself while engaged with a male prostitute friend so that noted friends of democrats, the police, would perform a wellness check on his residence and see him get his skull fractured intentionally but absolutely with precision enough to not cause brain damage on his -82- year old body for the purpose of electing a long con of a years old Democrat plant thats been living as a near homeless MAGA conspiracy nutcase for years all for the purpose at this very moment painting right wing nutjobs as right wing nutjobs. All while both were in their underwear at 2am or whenever.

And people are eating this story up. We're all fucked.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah, looking forward to impersonators paying the $20 that actual people won't and usurping their online identity!

Yep

red13n posted...

Twitter was a mistake.

Hell all of social media pretty much is.

@metal_dk

I think social media is both extremely harmful and exceptionally difficult to figure out how to find a solution for

Because the idea in general is completely benign. It would be like banning clubs because a nazi club exists

You dont need to ban clubs - just Nazi clubs.

Anyway, kind of interesting. Unlike with Trump, a bunch of Bolsonaros top allies just conceded defeat. This should make a coup attempt much harder for him which is good.

Thorn posted...

No, in fact IIRC polling consistently showed him losing (though in the first round he outperformed the polling because I guess far right fascists just do that everywhere now) but he just went full Trump in terms of calling it fake, saying anything less than a big win for him would be fraud, and then there was a shit ton of terrifying voter suppression going on at the hands of the police which is what Tony was alluding to earlier.

Not really everywhere luckily enough, or even all that common. Looking at recent elections, in Sweden the far-right performed exactly as polled and the centre-left slightly overperformed. In France, the far-right performed as polled but the left massively overperformed. In Italy there are two main far-right parties and FdI hit their polling while Lega strongly underperformed. In Portugal and Bulgaria too, the far-right did exactly as expected.

The only recent case I can think of the far-right outperforming their polling is Trump in 2020, and even then it was only really in the upper mid-west. I think what happened with Bolsonaro in the first round was Lula performing as expected, but Gomes and Tebet massively underperforming their polls with that support going straight to Bolsonaro. Never underestimate anti-socialist fearmongering. The second round polls wound up being much closer to the result likely because this effect was already accounted for.

LightningStrikes posted...

You dont need to ban clubs - just Nazi clubs.

I mean that is what the current policy social media has

Spoilers, it isn't working

masterplum posted...

I mean that is what the current policy social media has

I mean, that's what they say it is, but in practice they're not very good at enforcing it.

Thorn posted...

I mean, that's what they say it is, but in practice they're not very good at enforcing it.

It's because it's not practical. It's why Big Tech absolutely freaks out at being legally liable for things posted on it, because they would need to multiply their content moderation by a hundred times to keep up with everything which isn't really feasible.

It would probably cause most of it to shut down, which might be a better alternative, but it's not like they can flip a switch and make it happen

red13n posted...

Okay attempt to sum up the Paul Pelosi conspiracy.

Paul Pelosi(Age 82) called 911 on himself while engaged with a male prostitute friend so that noted friends of democrats, the police, would perform a wellness check on his residence and see him get his skull fractured intentionally but absolutely with precision enough to not cause brain damage on his -82- year old body for the purpose of electing a long con of a years old Democrat plant thats been living as a near homeless MAGA conspiracy nutcase for years all for the purpose at this very moment painting right wing nutjobs as right wing nutjobs. All while both were in their underwear at 2am or whenever.

And people are eating this story up. We're all fucked.

It isn't exactly so clear cut. A majority of it has been "something doesn't line up so I'm just asking questions" Y'know, that normal song and dance.
"Why were they both in their underwear?"
"Why didn't he attack paul before the police showed up?"
"Why did the attacker live in a place that looks like it's full of liberals?"
and a half a dozen others.

Each individual question has an explanation, but they just bombard you with them all and it's more of a death by papercuts approach by people who won't directly state an alternative sequence of events (other than the fact that they are convinced sexual relations were involved) but they are certain that "things just don't add up".

I agree that the need to get more people to moderate is something they don't want to do but I mean, I think it's naive to ignore the fact that social media companies have done the research and found that shit like this drives engagement so a lot of the higher-ups don't want to actually do anything about it and fact want to see if they can promote it while at the same time speaking publicly that it's not acceptable to try and have it both ways.

Facebook is the worst offender of this, of course, but it's basically a systemic problem where literally capitalism basically mandates that they let it happen to deliver more value to shareholders as much as possible. You'd need people to abandon these platforms in numbers large enough to turn that profit calculation around but by large people don't seem to be doing that in sufficient numbers.

Meanwhile, at a SCOTUS hearing on affirmative action:

https://twitter.com/SIfill_/status/1587098866905714688

Striking down affirmative action is gonna be one of the best things the Supreme Court has done. It's a travesty of a program.

I absolutely challenge the idea that American parents "send their kids to school to learn chemistry"

On the other hand, Clarence Thomas not knowing what diversity means is totally believable because he's dumb as fuck

How do you feel about legacy admissions, corrik?

Peace___Frog posted...

How do you feel about legacy admissions, corrik?

Nope. Merit only. Shouldn't even know who the applicants are when deciding. They should be decided blind based on GPA, attendance, conduct, testing scores, essays, and extra curricular.

Zero reason to know sex, age, race, etc. Federally protected discrimination statuses should not even be known.

Corrik7 posted...

Nope. Merit only.

And you understand that, without affirmative action, the merit of white college applicants will be weighted more positively than the equivalent merit of non-white college applicants, right?

Inviso posted...

And you understand that, without affirmative action, the merit of white college applicants will be weighted more positively than the equivalent merit of non-white college applicants, right?

Then they are more deserving. If it's 100% african-americans, they are more deserving.

Affirmative action is a weird one

On one hand, I agree it should be merit based.

On the other hand, what the hell even is merit?

Universities give scholarships for athletics, so athletics counts as merit, so what doesn't count as merit? In a way I think AA is trying to say that different life experiences is merit.

I feel like you could probably structure an admission program that achieves what you want it to achieve without specifically using race as a factor, which is probably what will happen (And honestly would be a good thing because races aren't homogenous)

Corrik7 posted...

Then they are more deserving. If it's 100% african-americans, they are more deserving.

I said equivalent merit. Not oh, this inferior minority should be given better treatment than a superior white person.

Clarence Thomas isn't technically even on the SC as far as I'm concerned, he just does what his wife tells him to do.

Espeon posted...

I said equivalent merit. Not oh, this inferior minority should be given better treatment than a superior white person.

I don't get what you are getting at then.

Thought this comment on a reddit thread was especially interesting

This is actually interesting:
Gorsuch is pinning the defendant's counsel on if a university is extremely wealthy, why are preferences given to legacies, and wouldn't eliminating this provide more room for diversity.

This is an extremely good point. If universities are arguing diversification of the student body is necessary and money doesn't matter, why do they care about legacies at all?

masterplum posted...

Affirmative action is a weird one

On one hand, I agree it should be merit based.

On the other hand, what the hell even is merit?

Universities give scholarships for athletics, so athletics counts as merit, so what doesn't count as merit? In a way I think AA is trying to say that different life experiences is merit.

I feel like you could probably structure an admission program that achieves what you want it to achieve without specifically using race as a factor, which is probably what will happen (And honestly would be a good thing because races aren't homogenous)

Universities get to determine what their merit is. If their merit is clearly racist, they should be shamed for it and sued for discrimination.

masterplum posted...

Thought this comment on a reddit thread was especially interesting

This is actually interesting:
Gorsuch is pinning the defendant's counsel on if a university is extremely wealthy, why are preferences given to legacies, and wouldn't eliminating this provide more room for diversity.

This is an extremely good point. If universities are arguing diversification of the student body is necessary and money doesn't matter, why do they care about legacies at all?

They want diversity based on legacy status. They want both legacy and non-legacy students. Real reason is money though.

Corrik7 posted...

Universities get to determine what their merit is. If their merit is clearly racist, they should be shamed for it and sued for discrimination.

I think these two statements are exclusive to each other. If a school decides that having a large female population has merit because nobody wants to attend an all male school but males have higher scores is that sex discrimination?

I am really interested in what the ruling is going to be on this, because it's a tricky subject

Espeon posted...

I said equivalent merit. Not oh, this inferior minority should be given better treatment than a superior white person.

I believe that the case in question is about Harvard discriminating against Asian American applicants, and that the data is pretty clear that they do?

I do think that there's value in having a diverse student body, but all of the various preferences in admissions (not just AA, but also legacy admissions, wanting to build a "well rounded class" in other ways like not having too many math nerds, etc) are unfair to the students rejected on the margins.

masterplum posted...

I think these two statements are exclusive to each other. If a school decides that having a large female population has merit because nobody wants to attend an all male school but males have higher scores is that sex discrimination?

I am really interested in what the ruling is going to be on this, because it's a tricky subject

SCOTUS has had a 3-tier setup for this for decades. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. Strict scrutiny applies to racial discrimination, intermediate applies to gender discrimination, and rational basis applies to most things (like intelligence or beauty). The standard for racial discrimination can be far more stringent than for anything else.

masterplum posted...

I think these two statements are exclusive to each other. If a school decides that having a large female population has merit because nobody wants to attend an all male school but males have higher scores is that sex discrimination?

I am really interested in what the ruling is going to be on this, because it's a tricky subject

Is your goal truly education if you want only one sex to learn there? And yes merit being not male is discrimination.

As for the ruling, I think it can be pretty simple and narrow: Diversity is not a compelling interest justifying racial discrimination.

This need not decide whether diversity justifies things not in the strict scrutiny bucket.

This is literally bidens VP and SC choice all over again (Har har bidens SC choice is literally an example of this). You don't go saying I want the best African American females. You want the best applicants regardless of sex and race that you feel will be an embodiment of your institution. Their sex nor race shouldn't matter and frankly should not even be known in deciding. There is going to be some subjectiveness on close applicants. There should be, a Har Har we need 30 more Latinos over here so sucks to be a few of these Asians or Caucasians or African Americans who did way way better.

Then if you are seeing discrepancies in applications, you start tackling the problems at the roots. Why are certain demographics doing better. Help those schools, those areas.

Corrik7 posted...

Nope. Merit only.

If we lived in a world where everyone had equal opportunity and merit could somehow be objectively measured, this would make sense

But neither of those are true, so it's an oversimplified solution to a complex problem

Corrik7 posted...

Then if you are seeing discrepancies in applications, you start tackling the problems at the roots. Why are certain demographics doing better. Help those schools, those areas.

That's counter to the idea of the meritocracy, though.

You see this in school funding all the time - states fund school districts that perform better. Schools that don't get more and more state oversight and restrictions, even to the point where they get taken over if they can't manage it. And the students don't get served.

In effect, you see the suburban districts take in tons of money, and rather than fix the schools that need help, the state takes money away from poorer schools and puts it into vouchers to help students go to Charter Schools... which are as bad, if not worse, than the poorly performing schools.

If you give money to rural and urban schools, hire good teachers, build community centers around those schools, you could transform the country. But the opportunities don't exist. That's really the root of affirmative action - it's not about less deserving minorities getting spots that white people "earned", it's accounting for societal disparities that make it impossible for minorities to achieve the same merits on grounds of lack of opportunity.

I feel like Corrik is so close to understanding this.

Basically the whole problem with merit-only approaches is that unconscious bias will make it not based on merit as a result of suppressing minority candidates. Affirmative Action exists to counter this and make it more of a meritocracy not less.

Corrik7 posted...

This is literally bidens VP and SC choice all over again (Har har bidens SC choice is literally an example of this). You don't go saying I want the best African American females. You want the best applicants regardless of sex and race that you feel will be an embodiment of your institution. Their sex nor race shouldn't matter and frankly should not even be known in deciding. There is going to be some subjectiveness on close applicants. There should be, a Har Har we need 30 more Latinos over here so sucks to be a few of these Asians or Caucasians or African Americans who did way way better.

Then if you are seeing discrepancies in applications, you start tackling the problems at the roots. Why are certain demographics doing better. Help those schools, those areas.

First off, the concept of "better" is subjective. All of those factors you listed as non-subjective can vary wildly from school district to school district, and it's not helped by the fact that schools are funded by property taxes, meaning the wealthiest areas get the most well-funded schools, and wealth is a strong factor towards school performance for students.

Second, America is 233 years old, and has had 45 presidents (Grover Cleveland is only counted as one); 44 were/are white men, 1 is a black man. America has had 49 vice presidents, 48 of which were/are white men, 1 is a black woman. America has had 116 Supreme Court justices: 108 were/are white men, 2 were/are black men, 4 were/are white women, 1 is a Hispanic woman, and 1 is a black woman. The idea that NOW we need to reward based on merit carries a heavy and biased interpretation of history.

The implication is it took us as a nation 178 years, until 1967, before we found a single black jurist (Thurgood Marshall) who warranted consideration as one of the nine best jurists in the country. That it took us as a nation 192 years, until 1981, before we found a woman (Sandra Day O'Connor) who merited a place among the nine most talented jurists in the country. ONE woman in 192 years, out of an ENTIRE 50% of the country. And keep in mind that the OTHER implication is that there was yet ANOTHER white man in both of those instances (and the six instances since) who should have gotten the job instead.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is, by all accounts, a highly skilled and competent jurist. By her credentials, she's certainly better suited for such a lofty position than Kavanaugh and Barrett. So, because Biden said he would replace Breyer with a black woman, that inherently means he was going to go out of his way to find someone inferior and undeserving? Because Trump didn't say out loud "I'm replacing Kennedy with a white guy", Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has more merit? Again, it's completely subjective.

You want to talk about fixing root causes, affirmative action is specifically designed to do that. In the case of college, you're taking an underprivileged minority group that, up until the mid-seventies was still LEGALLY discriminated against (not to mention nominal discrimination since then), and giving them the chance to attend prestigious schools the same as their white counterparts. You don't think there's a history in this country of C- white kids getting into college over A+ black kids, prior to the concept of affirmative action? This country spent 200 years enslaving black people, and an additional 100 legally segregating them as second-class citizens. That's a LOT of time for white people to build wealth and establish their families in positions of power that allow them to pick and choose winners and maintain a societal power structure that elevates white people over black people (think of all those studies that showed college admissions people being more likely to select a "white named" application over a "black named" application, even if both applications were exactly the same, or similar studies regarding the job market).

Affirmative action is meant to even the playing field, so that skilled minority applicants aren't as likely to get passed over for lesser-skilled white applicants, they're able to get a college education, make connections, and get a decent job with which to start accumulating wealth, thus helping to bolster certain demographics that struggle otherwise.

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1587159876014198784

One of those Vice Presidents was actually a mixed race (White/Native American) man!

Otherwise yeah.

Corrik: We need to fix this problem at the roots!

Also Corrik: Defaults to the party that deliberately perpetuates the root of the problem

Corrik7 posted...

Zero reason to know sex, age, race, etc. Federally protected discrimination statuses should not even be known.

Corrik7 posted...

Then if you are seeing discrepancies in applications, you start tackling the problems at the roots.

These two ideas are incompatible

Guys it truly is a much much better experience to just not see any of that shit, TRUST ME.

At least quote him if you're gonna respond to him.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Equality-Equity-and-Justice-Source-Tony-Ruth-from-Maeda-2019_fig2_354087577

I was once on the side that affirmative action was wrong. Not because I didn't agree that diversity was a good thing, but because I viewed it as a reverse racism.

Thankfully, I've gotten somewhat smarter and wiser of the years and I learned why there is a need for affirmative action. The playing field isn't equal, so how can you judge all by the same standards.

Exactly. Thats not to say all types of Affirmative Action are perfect or even good, but the system was built from the ground up to oppress people. It isnt just subconscious bias from the admissions department, its a systemic bias from the entire country.

Some great confirmations of the Paul Pelosi attack. The attacker (DePape) basically debunked all the conspiracies single handedly.

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1587156445903978497

'but why would he debunk right-wing conspiracies if he was right-wing??????????? THINK ABOUT IT"

In a Mirandized and recorded interview of DEPAPE by San Francisco Police Department Officers, DEPAPE provided the following information:

a. DEPAPE stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DEPAPE the truth, he would let her go, and if she lied, he was going to break her kneecaps. DEPAPE was certain that Nancy would not have told the truth. In the course of the interview, DEPAPE articulated he viewed Nancy as the leader of the pack of lies told by the Democratic Party. DEPAPE also later explained that by breaking Nancys kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions. DEPAPE also explained generally that he wanted to use Nancy to lure another individual to DEPAPE.

b. DEPAPE stated that he broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer. DEPAPE stated that Pelosi was in bed and appeared surprised by DEPAPE. DEPAPE told Pelosi to wake up. DEPAPE told Pelosi that he was looking for Nancy. Pelosi responded that she was not present. Pelosi asked how they could resolve the situation, and what DEPAPE wanted to do. DEPAPE stated he wanted to tie Pelosi up so that DEPAPE could go to sleep as he was tired from having had to carry a backpack to the Pelosi residence. Around this time, according to DEPAPE, DEPAPE started taking out twist ties from his pocket so that he could restrain Pelosi. Pelosi moved towards another part of the house, but DEPAPE stopped him and together they went back into the bedroom.

c. While talking with each other, Pelosi went into a bathroom, where Pelosi grabbed a phone to call 9-1-1. DEPAPE stated he felt like Pelosis actions compelled him to respond.

d. DEPAPE remembered thinking that there was no way the police were going to forget about the phone call. DEPAPE explained that he did not leave after Pelosis call to 9-1-1 because, much like the American founding fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender. DEPAPE reiterated this sentiment elsewhere in the interview.

e. DEPAPE stated that they went downstairs to the front door. The police arrived and knocked on the door, and Pelosi ran over and opened it. Pelosi grabbed onto DEPAPEs hammer, which was in DEPAPEs hand. At this point in the interview, DEPAPE repeated that DEPAPE did not plan to surrender and that he would go through Pelosi.

f. DEPAPE stated that he pulled the hammer away from Pelosi and swung the hammer towards Pelosi. DEPAPE explained that Pelosis actions resulted in Pelosi taking the punishment instead.

An absolutely terrifying situation for a man who is older than my parents to have gone through.

We know why Corrik had the beliefs he does and like most right wingers its none of the reasons he would admit publicly. Everything else is clearly just an excuse.

Leafeon13N posted...

We know why Corrik had the beliefs he does and like most right wingers its none of the reasons he would admit publicly. Everything else is clearly just an excuse.

I haven't heard many people go the "agree with me or you are racist route in a long time" must have been because I didn't talk on board 8 lately.

Inviso posted...

So, because Biden said he would replace Breyer with a black woman, that inherently means he was going to go out of his way to find someone inferior and undeserving?

This is absolutely the problem. If Biden said, I will select the best Justice regardless of race or gender and chose her, it would be a great accomplishment. The fact he limited and made it seem like she was only the best when applying filters, he cheapened the accomplishment and also called the legitimacy into question.

He could have absolutely not said that and just chose her. But he needed a "please pat me on the back while I pander" points. Thats what irks me so bad about democrats. Identity politics. Democrats pander for votes instead of treating everyone the same. It was what annoyed me about Biden when he came out and made the January 6th or whatever about race. It didn't need to to there except to fuel division and pander. It made me immediately have a bad taste in my mouth. I absolutely hate when democrats do that crap.

Every single person is equal to me, and you are judged solely by the person you are. Nothing else.

Corrik7 posted...

This is absolutely the problem. If Biden said, I will select the best Justice regardless of race or gender and chose her, it would be a great accomplishment. The fact he limited and made it seem like she was only the best when applying filters, he cheapened the accomplishment and also called the legitimacy into question.

He could have absolutely not said that and just chose her. But he needed a "please pat me on the back while I pander" points. Thats what irks me so bad about democrats. Identity politics. Democrats pander for votes instead of treating everyone the same. It was what annoyed me about Biden when he came out and made the January 6th or whatever about race. It didn't need to to there except to fuel division and pander. It made me immediately have a bad taste in my mouth. I absolutely hate when democrats do that crap.

Every single person is equal to me, and you are judged solely by the person you are. Nothing else.

Yeah, Biden really put his foot in his mouth with that one. He could have said nothing, and just nominated her.

It absolutely is laughable pandering

But why does it bother you THAT much

Did it bother you when Trump declared he would replace RBG with a woman