Jump to content


Premium Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've spent so much on stupid purchases trying to shop away the boredom, probably atypical though. I now have killer speakers, in a small apartment, that I can't use anymore because my neighbors don't like the same music I do
  2. ck

    Police Use of Force

    I think there were some good takeaways from it, but when people speak in absolute terms with such broad brushes, it's typically not accurate (e.g. saying all of a particular race, sex, geographic area, political party act a certain way is usually lazy and promoting prejudice - but they often get the most attention, so there's that). A couple takeaways I found interesting were how police are inundated during training with videos of officers being killed. This is very similar to what we do in the news. Whether we only show times where cops act bad, or we only report on the other political party doing something stupid, it all comes down to skewing our perception through availability of information - i.e. availability bias. We're led around on a leash by whatever is put in front of us. If d's watch msnbc and r's watch fox, they will never agree because they see the world differently. Same situation here - we won't actually be able to get strong consensus and buy in until we're all operating with the same set of information and understand how to appropriately analyze it. That last part is extremely difficult because statistics can easily be used in misleading ways, which is why it's probably better to let economists or data scientists take the lead in that area and not the local news, an activist group, or political parties. He also talked about protections for cops that shifted responsibilities for bad decisions (basically make taxpayers pay for mistakes and keep on keeping on). I'm not sure where that works successfully to quell bad decision making and seems to be a valid point that needs to be addressed.
  3. ck

    Police Use of Force

    If you have a subscription to the Economist, this is a thoughtful article; if you don't, it's a good publication and is worth thinking about subscribing to: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/06/04/how-to-fix-american-policing Talks about how the complicated structure (localities) of policing in the country makes it difficult to enact widespread change, what some departments have done to dramatically reduce violence, how we are a dangerous society overall, how they're obligated to respond to 911 calls and how that can lead to racial disparities, and how many victims of police violence have mental illnesses.
  4. ck


    This discussion is getting pretty convoluted. It seemed to have started with Brutus clarifying that labels indicating a country as being a problem shouldn't be construed as racist. This makes sense, countries can do things that people condemn and it shouldn't be misconstrued as an attack on the majority race in the country. He pointed out that the racist behavior seen by someone yelling at an asian person isn't necessarily the result of calling it the chinese virus. The other side of the argument was that it seemed like it may have contributed, which is fair, but no evidence just assumptions. Then we are getting pieces of information and a video about what, on its face, appears to be a racially motivated and prejudiced homicide. The people arguing against Brutus used his previous argument to put words in his mouth about his reaction. He basically said they were 2 different situations, and then nazi germany was used as an analogy, white people being the only arbiters was brought up, and basically the pile on continued. Maybe this has more to do with past comments, but this seems like people are arguing over different things. If the words being put in his mouth - racism doesn't exist - is what he really feels, then that should be the discussion. But it's jumping all over the place and nobody is going to want to engage in a discussion where it's more about re-phrasing someone's response in the way that makes them look terrible than actually talking about what was said. The original discussion (well last few days anyway) was - is calling it the Chinese virus racist or does it lead to racist behavior? My feeling is that it does lead to racist (racially based prejudice) behaviors, but it does so because people aren't bright and not because the statement itself is racist. Which leads to the question of who is responsible for irrational reactions? If it was you or I talking in a small setting, we probably shouldn't be held accountable. If it was in an academic setting, it would be fine to use. But a president or very public figure using it should know how these things get twisted and should refrain from it. It shows poor leadership that results in unwanted behaviors.
  5. ck


    66 pages in this topic, have we discussed solutions yet? We now have a great repository of racist, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Great. What's the path forward? Here's a few takes on it: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11380974/reduce-prejudice-science-transgender https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-to-change-someones-mind-according-to-science/ https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/forget-facts-3-ways-to-actually-change-someones-mi.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Cr64zCc38
  6. ck


    When an American goes abroad and someone tells them off because of Donald Trump, is that racism? Surely labeling it the Chinese virus seems stupid and a play to the base; however, coming back and saying that's racist really plays into the whole theme around some on the left calling things racist more often than they should. Can it lead to some prejudiced/bigoted acts? Yes. Who do we hold accountable for indirect and illogical reactions though? If we say we hold the person who said something that was misconstrued as accountable, then we're going to have to revisit a lot of things because we seem to pick and choose those circumstances based on the outcomes we want to see (i.e. we want Republicans to be seen as racist therefore we will attribute this non-racist statement to this racist act).
  7. so nothing is going into the southwest lot fronting 4th st at this point?
  8. 3d chess indeed. The frustration lies in how it's been obvious for a long time that he's in way over his head, but so many on the right keep finding excuses for his consolidation of power and stacking the ranks with friends and family. Not smart presidents in the past at least had a strong support system around them to inoculate some of the harm. Now we have a guy who everyone is afraid to argue with for fear of swift revenge, standing behind a presidential podium telling everyone during a pandemic that we need to try to ingest cleanser or zap ourselves with UV light. Really, democrats are worse than this? Utter embarrassment and a danger to the people. Unfit for office - proven for the umpteenth time now. Keep these press briefings going so fox will have a much harder time spinning it as fake news. And just imagine what a fool of this magnitude is really doing behind closed doors to the institutions that actually did make the country great. Authoritarian tendencies + not smart = disasters.
  9. Everytime I see Trump's family in the administration, it makes me so happy and confident. Nepotism has a bad connotation, but really it's great!
  10. wow - 9th paragraph in before they mentioned a republican (3 out of 4 were). And Feinstein I believe was the only one that actually had all her assets in a blind trust.
  11. That's kind of re-framing the argument into something that sounds unreasonable. The arguments I've heard are against free college, forgiving past student loans et al - I can't recall seeing anyone arguing against affordable college.
  12. ^ So massive democratic primary voter suppression? Who's behind this? Think the DNC is rigging it? -Edit, guess it's ok to call it out. But this is coming from a Bernie die hard so he's going to look for anything he can to de-legitimize things based on thinking Bernie won't win.
  13. I think it could easily hit 23K, I'd say could get down to 19/20K if earnings season brings pain and the virus doesn't get contained. Selfishly, I'm hoping it does - would be a good entry point. But I agree for older folks, this is rough. It's why I always thought it was crazy to advocate for retirement accounts tied to markets - too much potential for catastrophe and too complicated even for well-informed people to make the right decisions consistently. You may tell people to not panic, but it's much easier said than done when your life savings is at play.
  14. ^ what? This is why people who watch fox are so confused.
  • Create New...