Hellobee Boards

@jennlin821: I appreciate you keeping this board open as political discourse can be healthy as long as it does not lend to squabbling or the bullying others for having dissimilar views. The beauty of being American is in the ability to be ABLE to have and freely share differing opinions without the fear of being treated ill for having equal but opposite views. Conversation opens minds (to those who are willing) and allows individuals to shut down outdated convictions of "the other side" when there is give and take. There just needs to be an open willingness to listen (not just "hear words" and dismiss because it isn't what another wants to hear), as well as , to be the bigger person and to agree to disagree when an understanding can not be reached. I have enjoyed reading this board up until late. Thank you for creating it with honest intent.

I have been staying out of this discussion because I generally find these things to either be an echo chamber or mostly ineffective in swaying minds. (I've done some academic research on intellectual humility and belief superiority, and the takeaway is it happens on both sides, everyone thinks they know more than they do, etc.) To the spirit of the thread/question, personally I identify as a liberal democrat even though it's not in my best financial interest to vote that way.

But, @Modern Daisy:, it's a very hard argument to make that Trump isn't racist or that "anything racist hasn't come out of his mouth." I'm not calling you a racist (I don't know you or what you have said/endorse etc), but this compilation strongly seems to suggest otherwise for Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html?module=inline

(I know, it's from the liberal NY Times, but there are links to his ACTUAL statements so just take it at face value?)

@jape14: The sad thing is, I think a lot of Trump supporters literally don't consider things Trump has done to actually be racist, and therein lies the problem. They know the things he has said, and they don't disagree or have a problem with it. Just like I think a lot of Brett Kavanaugh supporters didn't even think Dr. Ford wasn't being honest, they just didn't think the things Kavanaugh has done are bad. "Boys will be boys and all." It all goes hand in hand with the fact that when people talk about "anti-white," it's often referring to things I would consider "anti-white-supremacy." There's a big difference between the two, but I think a large part of this country doesn't see it.

@MrsSCB: @periwinklebee: yes! I'm an academic psychologist by training and implicit racial bias is a real thing that exists. (among lots of other implicit biases, like implicit gender bias.)

If anyone is interested in the concept of implicit bias, I highly, highly encourage you to take the implicit bias tests available here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

@periwinklebee: YES! Thank you for writing this. 🧡

@periwinklebee: @jape14: Yes, implicit bias is such an important discussion. Something that always interests me is the fact that, when there are groups of people who have traditionally held more power (whether it be white people, men, etc.), achieving equality will always feel, for some, like they are giving something up. Because they are. When there's a power imbalance, one group will have to concede some of their power to reach equilibrium. I think that what we've seen in the last few years is that a lot of people are really grappling with that concept. That's when you get ideas like "reverse racism" or "if a white person did x..."--but it just doesn't work that way. When there's an imbalance, you can't just swap genders or races and act like it's the same, because the distribution of power isn't the same. Hopefully that makes sense, it's all so interesting to me and I will freely admit that I feel like I've learned a lot in the last few years (though there is always more work to be done).

@Maysprout: Ugh, I'll never understand the attitude of "it sucked for me, so it should for you, too" but it seems so prevalent. Shouldn't we all want things to get better for future generations? Of course I'm angry that I'll have to go unpaid for half of my mat leave in April. That doesn't mean I want everyone else to suffer, too. I still 100 percent support paid parental leave for everyone, even if I don't personally get to benefit.

@Adira: yes, we do get our news from different sources. The NY Times doesn’t even try to hide the fact that they are solidly anti-trump. And again, a lot of these quotes are in regards to illegal immigration, which I don’t think talking about makes someone racist. Other quotes are clearly taken out of context and actually meant to be uplifting. You can believe whatever you choose to believe, but I’m not one to be bullied into following a political group that admittedly has no direction or purpose because I’m scared of being called racist. It’s a very closed minded argument that is not based on any facts.

@jape14: Thank you!

@Adira: @ModernDaisy:

You both are amazing and highly intelligent women coming from opposing political sides. As an outsider, I can see where each of you is unable to see the other's perspective and this is lending to, what appears to be, a bit of unnessary finger pointing and some generalization based on miscommunication. Perhaps, each should take their corner [of the boxing ring ] and we call this a "No Contest" Match? It is getting a bit uncomfortable for a few of us (myself included) to read. Thank you, ladies, for being so passionate and spirited in your political beliefs ...
Respectfully, Kaohinani 🧡

@MrsSCB: As someone who is part Hispanic, I am sensitive to such statements. I do not disagree. I am simply asking that WE be just as respectful of each other (and of each other's perspectives) as we would wish that they would be of our own. We are a community.

@MrsSCB: I really don't know. With Trump, sometimes, it appears more to be ignorance than actual racism. (I know I shouldn't be writing this as everyone is going to come for me like a lynch mob .... How can a minority say THIS?!?!?) Hear me out: I have seen and read full statements of his tangents where he is lucid and others where he seems completely off-kilter and states "off-color" (pun intended) proclamations only to redact or to change his stance with action. I can't get a feel for where he stands. I know I don't like him and didn't vote for him but I do believe his ignorance and bullying nature is what I sense to be his largest weakness.

I watch both liberal and conservative news outlets to extrapolate from "both sides" as I simply am that type of person: An individual who wishes to find the truth that lies "somewhere in the middle." I assume many of you do as well.

@Adira:

Hmm, not sure how you got that from what I said!

"I don't know if you're familiar with the terms "Illiberal Left or Regressive Left" but it's very accurate in describing my issues with the Dems, I believe the role of government is to protect the rights of the individual and ensure they have equal status under the law, not to correct every perceived inequality. This is neither possible, nor rational. Among other very serious issues (including a lack of focus and vision, increasing authoritarianism and intrusiveness, and a woeful misunderstanding of the present global moment), I see inflammatory rhetoric, a terrifying assault on free speech and on facts that they find unpalatable, runaway identity politics, and, just recently, a statement that suggests that they see Socialism as the "future of the Democratic party."

I also said that I believed that Ocassio-Cortes and Bernie Sanders had confused a lot of people about what Socialism really is- i.e. conflating Democratic Socialism with the Social Democrat party. We ended up with a lot of Americans who are super confused about basic economic facts and believe .for example, that Sweden (et al) are Socialist nations. We also ended up with a lot of Americans who think "income inequality" is the most pressing issue of the day, when it simply isn't.

@Adira:

Ha! I hear you! My attention span is not what it used to be either

Hi all! I've lurked for freakin' ever, and decided to join over this thread.

I'm a former conservative Catholic who is now an anarchist. It took me a long time to come around because conservative propaganda in the US is on point.

Being a socialist is better in pretty much every way. Now, I just believe people when they tell me they're hurting. I used to be so suspicious. Always looking for the gotcha moment so I could find the right spot in the terms and conditions to prove my way was superior. I used to only see my inner circle as complex people. Now I realize most people make the best choices they can with the information they have available. It's so freeing.

If you want to learn about what socialism actually is, I recommend starting with Prof. Richard Wolff. He's the only Marxist economics professor in the US. He's got lectures on YouTube and does a weekly show. He's funny, if you like dry humor.

Contrapoints is a great YouTube channel. Start with her video about decrypting the alt right. Fair warning, she likes mood lighting and has a defined aesthetic. That particular video takes a few pot shots at centrists, but it was made right after the Charlottesville rallies with the actual Nazi's, she's dialed it back since then.

Since someone mentioned Molyneux, start with something lighter from him. Like his Star Wars review. Then watch Shaun's response.

If you like to read I recommend any of Sharon Astyk's books. She writes about food security, climate change, and farming. Her next book is about her family's experiences with foster care. Her books touch on issues that are politically charged, but her approach is pretty middle of the road. I mention her because seeing the juxtaposition of climate change and food production was instrumental in my conversion. It's also really cool to have a woman's perspective in these areas.

If you like to read, but hate yourself, you can read Capital in the 21st Century by Piketty. It's like 1,000 pages of the same economics calculations showing rich people will keep all the money forever.

I thought I'd join so there would be one person saying "Fuck Yeah! Dismantle capitalism!" On the thread.

I used to consider myself socially liberal/fiscally conservative, and reluctantly agree even now that capitalism is the best way to lift people out of poverty But then the inherent contradiction in this position started to bother me. You can see it the most in incoherent libertarian environmental policy, and the soft climate change denial of most libertarian candidates. And I'm disgusted with how the Trump administration has slowly neutered the EPA.
The that there's a downside to unsustainable economic growth seems to make most libertarians stick their fingers in their ears. That being said I think the Dems are going to have to go a little farther center if they want to win in 2020.

@Margaret Baddelachs: I think the difference between “ensuring equal status under the law” v. “correct every perceived inequality” is very subjective.

You accuse Dems of inflammatory rhetoric. Trump is the biggest culprit of inflammatory rhetoric I’ve ever seen. (Things he has said: I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and my supporters would still vote for me, lock her up, women protesting Kavanaugh’s appointment are an “angry mob” while white supremacist protestors are “very fine people”, millions of people voted illegally, H. Clinton ”wants to let people just pour in”, ridiculous “birther” conspiracy claims against Obama, Barack Obama “founded ISIS”, I’ll pay the legal fees for my supports who assault H. Clinton’s supporters, H. Clinton’s agenda is to “release violent criminals from jail”, Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals, Bernie Sanders will “tax you people at 90 percent”, etc.)

You accuse Dems of an assault on free speech. What is Trump’s “fake news” campaign if not an assault on free speech? Anything negative about him he brands as “fake news”.

You accuse Dems of an assault on facts that they find unpalatable. The climate change denial that runs rampant through the Republican party comes to mind. What facts are Dems assaulting?

“Runaway identity politics”. What does that even mean?

Plus he’s an enormous liar: Mexico will pay for the wall. I won’t golf like Obama, I’ll be working. I won the popular vote. Record crowds at my inauguration. He forged a letter from his doctor describing his “incredible” health. He said he would put his business interests in a blind trust.

I have never been so disgusted by a president. Putting an oil executive in charge of the EPA. Mocking the disabled reporter, the Access Hollywood tape, separating immigrant children from their families and putting them in camps? Referring to African countries as “shithole countries”. His response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico was appalling, Hurricane Michael hits and he is meeting with equally egomaniacal celebrities at the White House. He’s a terrible human being and I am horrified and embarrassed that he is the president.

@oscarthegoon: Just wanted to point out that @Margaret Baddelachs: said she'd never vote for a Republican either. She doesn't agree with either party or the things they say/do.

ETA: Though I totally agree with you! Whatever faults the Democratic Party has, the GOP seems 100 times worse! Mostly because of this President they've decided to align themselves with. I never used to fear that the GOP would drive our country into the dirt, but now it's pretty clear they will.

@Margaret Baddelachs: But do you have an example of a "perceived inequality"? It sounds like you're referring to things that you personally may feel don't *actually* represent inequality, despite how the people affected may feel. So I'm curious if you have anything specific in mind.

ETA: Also this: "It's the role of government to ensure equality under the law, and to provide a venue for enforcing ones legal rights." OK, we're in agreement there. But this muddies the waters a bit: "it is not the role of government to ensure Even Stevens for everyone." I'm not sure exactly what you mean about that. If you believe the government should have laws ensuring equality and mechanisms for challenging things that contradict those laws...what would there be left that a government could even do to "ensure even stevens"?

What I'm reading is you think the government should have laws to ensure inequality, and ways to enforce those laws, but also it's not the government's job to correct inequality, or at least certain types of inequality. That seems contradictory, or at the very least extremely vague.

@ MRSSCB:

What I mean by this is that I believe it is the role of government to make sure that we all have equal status under the law, not to ensure that everyone has equal representation in every field or situation in proportion to their percentage of the population. This is what I mean by "Even Stevens." Not every difference in group outcome is the result of racism/sexism/etc.

For example, there are fewer women than men working in STEM. The government notices this, and says, "Hey, let's investigate." So they might look and see whether there is discrimination going on at the hiring level. Nope, what they find is that women make up a smaller percentage than men of people receiving STEM degrees. So maybe they dig a little deeper to see whether schools are engaging in discrimination at the acceptance level. They find, nope- in fact if there is discrimination, it operates in favor of women.

So in this example, the government has done its job- it has satisfied itself that women who ARE interested in STEM fields are not facing legal discrimination at the educational or occupational level. At this point, the legitimate role of government ends. Tinkering with ratios and preferences at this point is overreach of the worst kind. (Although in this scenario, I would argue that if the government finds preferential treatment of certain groups, they need to step in and stop it immediately- even if the group discriminated against is *just* white men).

Another example. The government looks and sees that black people are less likely to get a mortgage from banks. Uh-oh. So they dig a little deeper to make sure that what is going on isn't actual discrimination. They look and find that once adjusted for income and credit history, the difference disappears. Great! All done now. Tinkering with demands on private industry to grant loans to people who represent a bigger risk to their bottom line isn't a legitimate use of governmental power.

Or maybe the government notices "Uh-oh- Hispanics hold a great deal less wealth than whites- we should look at this." So they do, and they find that Hispanics as a group are far more likely to be recent immigrants with low skills and low educational levels, and that once adjusted for those things, the gap starts to disappear. Awesome! Now the government has done its job, and can move on. It's not the role of government to remove wealth from one group (most of whom needed 2 or 3 generations in this country themselves to acquire that wealth) to give it to another group to "even it out."

Like most people, I am strongly in favor of anti-discrimination laws with real teeth, and to investigation of suspect differentials, but vehemently opposed to affirmative action policies or preferences. Trying to play games with percentages and ratios never works out well, and only digs us in deeper, requiring ever more overreach and intrusiveness and places the rights of groups over those of individuals.

@Oscarthegoon

So someone is confused here, and it isn't me.

Refute: to prove wrong by argument or evidence.

You did no such thing. You went on a Trump Tirade (most of which I agree with, btw).

"I don’t understand hatred for the Dems when they are clearly the lesser of the two evils by far."

So this is the very definition of an echo chamber then, isn't it?

You understand that Dems being "clearly the lesser of two evils," is by no means an Objective Truth. It is an opinion. It is YOUR opinion. YOU may find them to be "clearly the lesser of two evils," filtered through your own value system and perspective. As I said in my OP, *I* find them equally repugnant. JennLin821 specifically asked for people to chime in with their thoughts on this so that she could expand beyond her echo chamber, which is exactly what I did.