America has been creeping to the right for the last 30 years. Corporatism has spiralled out of control. Now what is considered center is actually the right.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You don't know what you're talking about.
I do
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I’m interested in learning more about FDR’s New Deal. Not sure how much farther to the left Bernie is than the restructuring of capitalism that occurred under FDR. Bernie has said his version of socialism is more an updated version of the New Deal than anything truly far left such as state ownership of the means of production.
Rich republican's kids tears about socialism are the best tears.
Yet, he is completely correct in this.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Bernie is touting New Deal to tug on the heartstrings of sentimental fools and young dolts. The New Deal has been institutionalized, deepened, broadened, and reformed over time to keep up with the times.
Many New Deal programs are latched onto by both parties, especially the right (i.e. farm stability). We largely use make work programs in ND fashion, either when necessary (Obama) or out of political expediency (both parties with infrastructure bills, funneling money to home states through military bases and industries). The make work bills are still largely structured to empower the private sector (the logical economic goal of all sane citizens). We still target subsidized loans to sectors, and now to citizens through home loan programs.
On the labor front, only organized labor has taken a direct hit, but our working conditions laws have replace a huge chunk of needing them. Retirement programs are pretty broad and replaced pensions. Minimum wage is still here. We have EITC, tax credits, food stamps, and other assistance to help the poor in low wage jobs. Social security. Our people are charitable and try to bring a Thanksgiving and Christmas to every family. We've effectively had socialized medicine for decades.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Chicken Little nonsense.
I wouldn't say a highly regulated country with the least competitive tax code among wealthy economies "creeping to the right".
What we have now is pushback from the right giving off the appearance of moving right. Combine that with a media fueling the fire by telling us how ****** our living conditions are and playing up the outlier bad actor situations and voila people see moving right of center. Reality is quite opposite and plain enough to see.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
In typical One Brow fashion, you've mischaracterized what I've said. Let me set the record straight.
1) I said that the marginalization that black people of any sex face has been shown to be more strong that the discrimination that white women face, i didn't make reference to academic literature in the specific context of female vs black politicians. That's your wording, not mine. Be accurate, don't be misleading.
2) You then used "members of congress" vs. percentage of population as your metric-- which you later agreed to being a dumb one, when I explain why this was a poor metric to use. I then used figures from the Senate that is more divorced from the confounds that your example provided, and it further worked against your point.
3) You want papers? Here's one example of the manifestation of this difference in an academia-context, and it cites to dozens more that you can read on your own time: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40034373?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
or, google "intersection of race and gender united states" into google scholar and you'll have many more to read about. I wont waste my time further arguing a point that's as commonly understood and accepted as human-fueled climate change.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Here's the image, point out which ones you disagree with and why. The entire right column is soft except maybe Higher Ed for all. Fed jobs guarantee is an emerging reality in the context of robotics. The only aspirational ones in an American context are Medicare for all, Education for all, and Housing for all. Guns will get regulated, that's on the horizon. The other 3 will require effort, but they too will come.
What's the I and A stand for anyway?
Intersex/Asexual
Here's a quote your post I was replying to:
The next post:
So the context you were replying in, and of the discussion, was politics as mentioned by you explicitly. If you wanted to make a broader statement that did not apply to just politics, it's up to you to expand the context just as explicitly, not on us to read your mind.
I acknowledged a major confounding variable, but there is a similar confounding variable in the Senate. Neither of us can quantify how much "more divorced" it is, that's a baseless claim on your part.
I would agree you should drop this discussion. Your primary example is not arguing about differing levels of discrimination faced, and on whom it has a worse effect. It's saying that the hiring of white women in academia has the effect of exacerbating racism, and points out how some of the most racist people in the country are less sexist than racist (I certainly don't disagree here).
It puts out percentages in hiring compared to the general faculty, but does not compare them to the percentages in applications, and does not make the claim that blacks face more discrimination in hiring, just that they are hired less. For example, in 1995 the University of Oregon had 36.3% female hires and 8.4% non-white hires (shorthand of 36.3/8.4). Is that based on an application rate of 36.3/8.4, or 30/15, or 45/6? By 2003, the composition of both had risen to above the 1995 hire rate (42/9).
There a lot of unpacking to do, but none of it compares whether the effect of racism is larger or smaller than the effect of sexism. I don't know why you misrepresented the contents of this paper, but that misrepresentation means I have even less confidence in your claim than before.
I have read paper on the intersection of race and gender. They are about the effects can multiply instead of add, making the oppressive experiences of a black woman typically more severe that those of a black man + white woman. I don't recall any that decide to pull out a comparative measuring stick. I haven't heard of any serious researchers who are into those sorts of comparisons.
Try pulling out another paper with whatever process you use. Maybe you'll get lucky.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
In-between and Already-there? Idk.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I can tell you, since I have just been skimming the conversations above and really don't know what you are talking about, that hiring more women and minorities is really hard, primarily due to the applicant pool. Any diversity in hiring needs to start at the recruiting/job-posting level. It is hard to look specifically for women or minorities for a management role when I get 30 applications from white males, 3 from women and 2 from minorities. I tend to do my screening without identifying info, such as name or location, whenever I can (easy with paper resumes, harder when everything is electronic), but still end up with a second round pool of mostly white males and maybe 1 or 2 of the other groups if they had the qualifications.
In Cali we get a better mix of applicants than Utah, naturally, so it tends to level out (I am in the racial minority in our management staff here, which is primarily hispanic/latin). But I have worked places that "require" that a certain percentage of everything be minority/women, which makes it tough when you are forced to guess at nationality and gender from the name on the resume, which starts up those natural biases we all carry, and you end up excluding some really good candidates to make sure the female or the minority is moved along to the next phase. One place went so far as to automatically bring in any minorities that applied for face to face interviews while screening the rest and only bringing in a proportionate number of "white male" candidates (best as we could tell from names anyway, believe it or not there are a lot of Jim Smiths who are black). It was very difficult to ever get to a point where you felt confident in a hire and we had horrendous turnover in management.
This whole thing is a tough nut to crack.
In Cali we get a better mix of applicants than Utah, naturally, so it tends to level out (I am in the racial minority in our management staff here, which is primarily hispanic/latin). But I have worked places that "require" that a certain percentage of everything be minority/women, which makes it tough when you are forced to guess at nationality and gender from the name on the resume, which starts up those natural biases we all carry, and you end up excluding some really good candidates to make sure the female or the minority is moved along to the next phase. One place went so far as to automatically bring in any minorities that applied for face to face interviews while screening the rest and only bringing in a proportionate number of "white male" candidates (best as we could tell from names anyway, believe it or not there are a lot of Jim Smiths who are black). It was very difficult to ever get to a point where you felt confident in a hire and we had horrendous turnover in management.
This whole thing is a tough nut to crack.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
This is definitely not the image that I responded to and which you said you agreed with. That image said F this, F that, F the other, and F compromise.
Here's the image, point out which ones you disagree with and why. The entire right column is soft except maybe Higher Ed for all. Fed jobs guarantee is an emerging reality in the context of robotics. The only aspirational ones in an American context are Medicare for all, Education for all, and Housing for all. Guns will get regulated, that's on the horizon. The other 3 will require effort, but they too will come.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Maybe you need to add another P as well because it's very unfair to leave those poor pedophiles behind in all this progress.