prev <-> next
[2020-09-22 17:12:01] - yeah i'd like to hear that argument, i guess. daniel, do you have a definition of a "fair" district that includes information other than geographic boundaries / closeness when drawing districts? i mostly see racial/community/etc considerations as unnecessary and very problematic. ~a
[2020-09-22 17:09:04] - a: seems reasonable. That might come to a head though with the "equal results" crowd that demand that there must be considerations for racial factors. - mig
[2020-09-22 17:00:44] - mig: my thoughts on what counts as a "fair" district is that it includes natural geographic boundaries and (or so) polling places are near peoples houses. that's like basically all i care about. if you could have a computer algorithm draw those lines, i think it would be best because it would be less likely (but not impossible) to include political biases. ~a
[2020-09-22 16:58:24] - mig: no clue. but (imo, the important part) that will no longer be the job of the legislative to figure out. ~a
[2020-09-22 16:57:22] - as an aside, how does one define what a "fair" district is? - mig
[2020-09-22 16:56:35] - daniel: in the new system (assuming it passes), the legislative can still down-vote the new lines, but they can't ever draw new lines. if everything fails, it'll go to the supreme court of virginia to draw new lines. not sure exactly why that is the failure case. maybe it's better than adrian's idea that the legislative doesn't get a say in the lines at all? ~a
[2020-09-22 16:51:45] - Then the system doesn't work so well because people aren't operating in good faith they are just doing whatever for their parties maximal gain right now. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 16:50:59] - a: Maybe good? I don't know. Again the question of good faith. Like the system seems ok in order to get districts that everyone is ok with. What happens if the R's just vote no forever thus keeping the current maps because anything new is less advantageous for the R party? (tbh I don't actually know which party {if any} VA district maps currently favor) -Daniel
[2020-09-22 16:40:41] - daniel: (putting this in parentheses because i don't want it to take away from the main conversation about rbg, but you mentioned gerrymandering and that reminded me of our new thing! virginia took a big step . . . forward or backward . . . on gerrymandering: we may have a constitutional amendment on our ballot that decides how redistricting happens. i'd eventually be interested to know what you guys' thoughts on the amendment is) ~a
[2020-09-22 16:36:35] - If we just accept packing courts, changing rules, gerrymandering, etc as "politics" as something to accept I think its a sad thing and moves the country towards failure. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 16:35:33] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/opinions/mcconnell-rushing-ginsburg-replacement-bailey/index.html Things like that are where my concern stems from. If more and more people just accept that the gov isn't working in good faith for the country then I think things trend toward a more dire outcome. I know people here don't always like the gov but I think thats different than thinking the gov isn't acting in good faith. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 16:21:37] - pretty worried? I don't know the right way to phrase it. I don't think the country immediately becomes a failed state or anything but I think its a big step towards our country failing as a concept. So not sure how to phrase that. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 16:20:40] - I'm slightly worried about the ramifications of an RBG replacement - not for the Court specifically - but what happens with the parties just completely stop caring about acting in good faith. I don't think thats a good path for us and I think this moves us a big step further down it. -Daniel
[2020-09-22 16:05:12] - https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-next-supreme-court-nominee-419898 looks like full steam ahead on replacing RBG. It's nakedly hypocritical, but as Obama famously said, "elections have consequences." - mig
[2020-09-22 14:28:45] - no, it's not a good sign, but we might disagree on any theses. ~a
[2020-09-22 00:57:52] - https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/mid-south/louisville-police-chief-declares-state-of-emergency-for-department-ahead-of-breonna-taylor-case-update/ I think we can all agree that it's not a good sign when a police department feels like it has to preemptively declare a state of emergency before an announcement in a case. -Paul
[2020-09-21 20:56:18] - a: im not sure it changes that the damage from the riots is still a BFD. - mig
[2020-09-21 19:18:31] - mig/paul: huh. so before you bite my head off, this is TOTALLY an unfair comparison. we can't/shouldn't just compare every accident to every intentional destruction of property. that is stupid, imo. still, here's my takeaway: the gender reveal disaster was bigger than i thought it was. AND the damage due to illegal blm bullshit was much smaller than i thought it was. ~a
[2020-09-21 18:28:12] - paul: yes, push is more than 3/4ths of the total odds. ~a
[2020-09-21 18:26:44] - a: Hence why it was a counter proposal.
I didn't want to counter with an offer which was better for you. Honestly, I think we both assume push is the most likely outcome anyway. -Paul[2020-09-21 18:24:07] - (your bet is worse for me, because you changed $2 to $5 AND because of independents and how you worded that, but that's fine i guess, because $40 / .0005 btc is high enough) ~a
[2020-09-21 18:21:36] - paul: you have a deal. i like in both scenarios (except push) your ratio of btc to dollars increases.
~a[2020-09-21 17:35:53] - a: Counter proposal: If Trump wins a second term and the Democrats get 51 senate seats (just being more specific here), then Paul pays Adrian $40. If Trump wins a second term and the Democrats get 50 seats or fewer, the Adrian pays Paul 0.0005 btc. Push in all other situations. -Paul
[2020-09-21 17:25:47] - paul: of course i agree its small. we could turn this into a bet if you're felling up to it. it'll be a fucked up bet though. proposal: adrian wins $40 if trump wins presidency and democrats take senate. paul (or whoever) wins $2 if trump wins presidency and republicans keep senate. push in all other situations (including biden wins, and weird ties in senate because of an independent). ~a
[2020-09-21 17:23:51] - mig: 1/5 is too high? ~a
[2020-09-21 17:23:35] - a: sure it's not 0%. But come on, the scenario where Trump wins but democrats take the senate is not likely. - mig
[2020-09-21 17:19:52] - weird fucking uber eats ad. i'm successfully entertained and also confused by this advertisement. ~a
[2020-09-21 17:15:13] - a: Mine are (under 70). As for the 100% stuff.... sure. Nothing in politics and elections is 100% (or 0%). There's a non-zero chance a libertarian wins the presidency. Would you agree that it is very, very unlikely for the Democrats to retake the Senate at the same time Trump pulls an upset and holds onto the presidency? -Paul
[2020-09-21 16:49:33] - paul: right, i understand the thinking. but it's not a 100% deal though. fivethirtyeight dosen't have that exact prediction (trump wins the presidency and democrats take the senate), but it's strictly not 0%. you agree with that, right? even if you account for the thinking you're discussing, it's not 0%. ~a
[2020-09-21 16:47:24] - are everyones' parents under 70 here? just curious. ~a
[2020-09-21 16:47:20] - a: I don't want to speak for Miguel, but I believe the thinking is that if Trump wins, it typically will boost other Republican races because people tend to vote straight party line. And because Trump is a bit of a long shot, if he wins, that probably means a big boost for Republican senate races. -Paul
[2020-09-21 16:45:16] - https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-09-11-20-intl/h_62d0c1784b6965c6dd3cff51980670ed "CDC says Covid-19 death rate is under 1% for everyone but people over 70" -Paul
[2020-09-21 16:44:48] - mig: "it definitely won't if Trump wins". what does this mean? you think its impossible for the senate to go republican if trump wins reelection? i'll admit the odds are low, but this could totally happen (like, probably something like 1/5 if trump wins, maybe?). not totally related, but fivethirtyeight reports "democrats are slightly favored to win the senate (61% chance)" ~a
[2020-09-21 16:30:05] - https://www.cnet.com/news/xbox-expansion-microsoft-buys-fallout-maker-bethesdas-parent-company-for-7-5b/ This seems like a big deal in the console wars. -Paul
[2020-09-21 16:26:57] - It's a tiny bit.... ironic? that she would have that wish considering lots of people were trying to get her to retire under Obama and she resisted. I guess she was hoping to have the first woman president name her successor? -Paul
[2020-09-21 16:26:17] - daniel: well not to mention it would require democrats taking the senate. I don't think the senate flips either way, but it definitely won't if Trump wins. - mig
[2020-09-21 16:23:34] - mig: Yeah I would assume it meant post election. If Trump won again it would be crazy town to hold the seat till yet another election. -Daniel
[2020-09-21 16:21:51] - a: I think most are going with the assumption (hope?) that Trump will lose this november. Wishing the seat open till 2025 is patently ridiculous.- mig
[2020-09-21 16:00:58] - i think the wording she picked was interesting. "new president" implies that trump will lose or that we'll wait until 2025. we don't usually refer to a successful reelection as a "new president" right? ~a
[2020-09-21 15:55:50] - mig/daniel: i assume you guys saw this. obviously it doesn't have any bearing in law or politics, but it is an interesting move regardless. ~a
[2020-09-21 15:54:28] - mig/daniel: "Was hoping maybe it might have held off till the weekend was over, but here we are" i counted 90 minutes. don't remember if it was realDonaldTrump or mitch mcconnell, but it was like ~90 minutes. ~a
[2020-09-21 14:56:29] - mig: I think McConnel poisoned that well 4 years ago with Garland. -Daniel
[2020-09-21 14:44:46] - I'm a little sad the news of RBG passing just immediately turned into a political yell fest almost immediately. Was hoping maybe it might have held off till the weekend was over, but here we are. - mig
[2020-09-18 19:39:45] - mig: Oof, okay. That is a little surprising that he would be nuanced about this particular case, then. -Paul
[2020-09-18 19:11:43] - https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/nfls-pouncey-brothers-wear-free-hernandez-hats-in-support-of-aaron-hernandez
[2020-09-18 19:11:19] - Pouncey’s just ... <a href=“https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/nfls-pouncey-brothers-wear-free-hernandez-hats-in-support-of-aaron-hernandez”>a little weird</a>. - mig
[2020-09-18 19:06:28] - paul: i think its just villanueva. - mig
[2020-09-18 18:32:22] - mig: The Steelers, as a group of players, strike me as possibly a little less liberal than what I envision the average NFL player is, probably mostly due to Villanueva. Offensive linemen are typically pretty close, right? Maybe they've been talking and Villanueva has changed his mind some. -Paul
[2020-09-18 17:19:57] - paul: yes? lots of people don't trust mail in ballots. i don't blame them after all the usps BS. ~a
[2020-09-18 15:38:00] - https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Virginia&src=trend_click&vertical=trends Apparently early voting starts in Virginia today? Why didn't all of these people request mail-in ballots? I guess worries over their vote not counting? -Paul
[2020-09-18 15:23:01] - ho-hum, admitting to a casual quid-pro-quo cover-up. "lawyers representing the U.S. accepted the witness statement as accurate and confirmed they had no intention of cross-examining the claim" ~a
[2020-09-18 14:58:17] - paul: I'm surprised pouncey of all people was one of the dissenters (not surprised about villanueva). - mig
[2020-09-18 13:41:27] - https://ark-invest.com/white-papers/bitcoin-part-two/ Not sure "most compelling monetary asset since gold" is a huge selling point, but maybe I should buy a little more btc sometime... -Paul
[2020-09-18 13:31:02] - a: Yeah, it's surprising how bad the rates are at some of the major banks. It's like how they often have the worst online savings rates too. -Paul
[2020-09-18 13:18:35] - also, i might have trouble with a broker, honestly. company earnings are variable, and brokers typically hate that because they have a harder time selling the mortgage. it has been a problem. ~a
[2020-09-18 13:16:26] - also we can do this offline if you'd prefer. my current broker, wells fargo, has terrible terrible rates. their rates were pretty good when i got my purchase mortgage, but not anymore. ~a
[2020-09-18 13:15:39] - who was the mortgage broker? ~a
[2020-09-18 13:15:22] - a: Stockton Mortgage Corporation, although we found them through a mortgage... broker? Somebody who works with multiple banks. -Paul
[2020-09-18 13:14:18] - https://www.outkick.com/maurkice-pouncey-antwon-rose-helmet-sticker/ I think about this whenever I see NFL players / others with "Jacob Blake" on their clothes. -Paul
[2020-09-18 13:12:28] - paul: who did you refi through? what company? thanks. ~a
[2020-09-18 12:27:48] - Or if it somehow gets weighted towards preferred ethnicities. - mig
[2020-09-18 12:27:14] - a: I don't really know. I hate tests as much as you do, but I don't have a good answer right now. A lottery seems ... mostly fine I guess. Though it'll keep people unhappy if it does not produce the "correct" results. - mig
[2020-09-17 23:44:41] - a: I moved on from the topic. Paul made up his mind so it didn't seem worth discussing and was just making me mad. -Daniel
[2020-09-17 21:15:54] - mig: interesting. do you have a suggestion / proposal on how they could change entrance? as someone who hates tests, i could be easily turned
~a[2020-09-17 21:14:53] - a/paul: sure I here you, I've never liked the test requirement. I don't really stand w/ the arguments that I think most have been making (the test is rah-cist!) but I don't see the test as its laid out as a good metric of merit. - mig
[2020-09-17 21:08:13] - meh, i'm more swayed by the "the area will be open to everyone eventually". that seems to be more obviously a pro-paul quote as any other. where's daniel? after reading that quote, i'm kinda done with the daniel+adrian side of the argument. ~a
[2020-09-17 21:06:22] - a: So, I don't think that sentence is lying at all. I think they want it to be as majority black as they can but realize it is a legal and practical impossibility for it to be exclusively black. -Paul
[2020-09-17 21:05:17] - a: Does that sound like they're going to be just as welcoming of dumb people and won't at all be doing anything to try to promote smart people coming? (And yes, I know how super snobbish I sound right now. Had a hard time finding a good synonym. Not smart enough). -Paul
[2020-09-17 21:04:29] - a: Since I know you hate when I swap races (and to mix topics), how about if i said, "TJ is an integrated, tolerant and diverse community even as smart people, so we don't intend for it to be exclusively smart, but we do intend for it to be pro smart in every way." -Paul
[2020-09-17 21:03:20] - a: In that, yeah, they're not going to actively discriminate against whites by not permitting them to move there since, ya know, it's kinda illegal, but they kinda want something closer to exclusively black than not. -Paul
[2020-09-17 21:01:37] - a: Even if we take that quote in a vacuum and ignore literally the entire rest of the article (including the quote right above where they answer why they wanted to create an all-black city with "It's something that's been done for generations"), that quote still feels like it pretty strongly leans towards my interpretation to me. -Paul
[2020-09-17 20:59:27] - yeah that one. ~a
[2020-09-17 20:59:09] - a: I assume this is the quote you want? "We are an integrated, tolerant and diverse community even as Black people, so we don't intend for it to be exclusively Black, but we do intend for it to be pro Black in every way." -Paul
[2020-09-17 20:58:04] - mig: oh oops i accidentally directed that towards paul. anyways, i don't like it. ~a
[2020-09-17 20:57:24] - I'm kinda with Adrian here, I'm not married to a test being required, but you need SOME way to figure out who should make it in and I don't see why a test is any worse than GPA. "All of the kids applying to TJ have merit, have talent to be in TJ." Really? Every kid that applies has the talent to be in TJ? I don't see how this doesn't dilute the school. -Paul
[2020-09-17 20:57:03] - paul: you didn't answer my question (if you look further down, you can see where i asked it). you know what they said, we've been over this like a dozen times. they said they're pro-inclusiveness or whatever, don't make me look up the quote again. oof, this new article is less promising: "the area will be open to everyone eventually" yikes. ~a
[2020-09-17 20:54:56] - mig: There is a webinar tonight for alumni to discuss the changes, apparently. I thought about logging onto it, but I suspect it will be a waste of time. -Paul
[2020-09-17 20:53:36] - a: You didn't answer my question, and where is the quote where they said they won't take measures to encourage a mostly black town? -Paul
[2020-09-17 19:35:57] - sat costs $50 and the tj test costs $100. (psats are *much* cheaper but i think that's because schools will usually foot the labor to administer the test). i say just have kids do the SATs? that's 50% off the cost of the test? i'm sure parents will whine because of how hard the SATs are for their 8th graders. ~a
[2020-09-17 19:31:36] - paul: imo, that sounds dumb. i'm notoriously bad at test-taking, but i think it's a necessary part of the entrance. additional fun fact about me, i failed the test to get into tj (i was waitlisted in 1995). when i got in as a sophomore in 1996, you used your psat scores in place of the normal entrance exam. aaaand my psat scores were pretty low. ~a
[2020-09-17 19:26:44] - paul: so, yes or no? they've specifically said they won't. do you think they're lying? ~a
[2020-09-17 19:25:24] - https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-schools-superintendent-admissions-changes-magnet-high-school of local import. I don't dislike the changes for the most part, but still wary this is being driven by a need for equal results rather than equal opportunity. - mig
[2020-09-17 19:24:13] - a: So, yes or no? Do you believe that the founders of Freedom would prefer a mostly black town and would take measures to encourage that? -Paul
[2020-09-17 19:23:42] - a: I don't have time to go back and look through the whole conversation, but I feel like every time I suggested anything like Freedom wanting more blacks (which, almost by necessity would mean less whites), I got pushback from both you and Daniel insisting that I was making up motivations for them. -Paul
[2020-09-17 14:58:18] - paul: i said multiple times if they break georgia or US law, then we can readdress whether it was a good idea or not. until then, they aren't going afoul of any laws (i believe). i never once said they will have no intention to try to have more blacks around and less whites, only that i give them the benefit of the doubt. ~a
[2020-09-17 14:56:45] - that's incorrect. that's not what i'm arguing. ~a
[2020-09-17 14:56:26] - a: That's not what you are arguing, though. You are claiming that Freedom has no intention at all to try to have more blacks around and less whites. Would you make that same argument for Chinatown? -Paul
[2020-09-17 14:12:40] - paul: that i am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't trying to illegally ban white people. ~a
[2020-09-17 14:11:19] - a: Yes, I have, but I don't know what your point is. That Asians have their own "town"? -Paul
[2020-09-17 14:10:38] - paul: sorry, any *big* city? dc's chinatown isn't really a city in its own right. but the chinatown in nyc or sanfran is pro-chinese-americans. i give nyc's or sanfran's chinatown the benefit of the doubt. ~a
[2020-09-17 14:05:32] - paul: have you ever been to chinatown? in . . . any city? ~a
[2020-09-17 14:04:51] - a: Like 99/100 pieces of evidence seem to indicate otherwise, but you are hanging on the one sentence where they're like, "We want to be diverse". That's a huge benefit of the doubt that I can't imagine you ever giving whites or Christians or even Asians or other non-preferred groups. -Paul
[2020-09-17 14:02:05] - a: Right. There were a lot of responses I was expecting to that article, but the one I did NOT expect was the takeaway that a desire to create a "safe haven for black families" which "seeks to support black-owned [..] businesses" was totally not at all an effort for black families to be more around other blacks and divorce themselves from whites. -Paul
[2020-09-16 18:11:39] - File:Political spectrum horseshoe model.svg
[2020-09-16 16:15:34] - paul: "just more evidence of that horseshoe theory that the racist and anti-racist (or woke) in some ways want to the same thing: separation of the races" they've specifically said they don't want this and this is somehow evidence of the opposite? ~a
[2020-09-16 16:09:54] - they have expressed they don't want separation of the races. i assume you think they're lying, based on everything you've said. is that correct? ~a
[2020-09-16 16:09:24] - And I think that's a damn shame, no matter which race it is that is expressing that desire. -paul
[2020-09-16 16:09:04] - Anyway, the whole point of me posting that was just more evidence of that horseshoe theory that the racist and anti-racist (or woke) in some ways want to the same thing: separation of the races. -Paul
[2020-09-16 16:07:54] - a: Does it come close to the things Freedom is looking to do? -Paul
[2020-09-16 16:07:42] - a: It goes beyond just Freedom, though. I was talking about every other city in America in general. I don't think it is 100% without a doubt cannot-be-refuted that every city in America is pro-white. I actually think it's probably somewhere close to 50/50 depending on demographics and political leanings and other things. Even the most pro-white city, though.... what exactly do they do that is so pro-white? -paul
[2020-09-16 16:07:39] - oh, i deleted "very suspect" before posting, never mind. i said "more suspect". ~a
[2020-09-16 16:06:58] - paul: "some clear and obvious sign of racism" i never said that. i said "very suspect". ~a
[2020-09-16 16:06:12] - paul: "if the stated goals are EXACTLY the same with just the races replaced, you suddenly go from worst to best" that is correct. ~a
[2020-09-16 16:05:40] - a: And again, I'm fine if you think one is more understandable or justified, I just don't see how it makes sense to think that one is like some clear and obvious sign of racism (one of the worst accusations that can be thrown at somebody now) and the other is a completely laudable thing. -Paul
[2020-09-16 16:05:37] - paul: "That was the joke" no, i knew you were reversing the race. i didn't have the insider link, that was the problem. thank you. ~a
[2020-09-16 16:04:29] - a: Right, and if the stated goals are EXACTLY the same with just the races replaced, you suddenly go from worst to best. -Paul
[2020-09-16 16:03:30] - a: https://www.insider.com/freedom-georgia-initiative-georgia-land-community-2020-9 "Scott told Insider that the initiative is focused on building the community from the ground up with the help of Black-owned businesses, like banks and contractors" Here, if you want something from Freedom. -paul
[2020-09-16 16:03:05] - a: Uh... you're right. I did make that up. That was the joke. Governments aren't doing that. If you're talking about the opposite, I posted links to that before about movements to support black businesses. -Paul
[2020-09-16 16:01:59] - and i'm sure you know by now that in the two situations, i find their stated goals are not symmetrical. ~a
[2020-09-16 16:01:13] - paul: no i am not. i am making assumptions based on their stated goals. ~a
[2020-09-16 16:00:32] - a: Aren't you basically assuming the absolute most evil of intentions for one group of people based solely on their race and assuming the absolute best of intentions for another group of people based solely on their race? Is that okay? -Paul
[2020-09-16 16:00:05] - paul: "Do they have government programs to encourage white owned businesses?" again, i don't see that in either link. ~a
[2020-09-16 15:58:50] - paul: "they are organizing a 'big white campout'?" yes. a million times yes. have you ever been to a campsite? they're all big white campouts. ~a
[2020-09-16 15:57:47] - "encouraging people to only spend their money at white businesses" i'm like 50% sure you just made that up. where's that from? i looked at both links and don't see that. ~a
[2020-09-16 15:55:12] - a: Tell me how those 19,500 other cities are all pro-white. Is it because they're encouraging people to only spend their money at white businesses? That they are organizing a "big white campout"? Do they have government programs to encourage white owned businesses? -Paul
[2020-09-16 15:53:08] - a: Also, and I don't want to get dragged into yet a third debate, but I question all of your other assumptions.
I already gave you reasons that somebody might give (more crime). Also, do you think DC is pro-white? Blacks outnumber whites as residents and I don't think they've had a non-black mayor my whole lifetime. -Paul[2020-09-16 15:52:11] - i decided to put it back on you. why would someone want to make a more-pro-white city when 19,500 pro-white cities already exist? ~a
[2020-09-16 15:51:30] - a: You're not answering my question. I asked what would they do differently? -Paul
[2020-09-16 15:51:25] - this is just one city vs 19,500 cities. i say give them a try. if they break georgia or US law, then we can readdress whether it was a good idea or not? ~a
[2020-09-16 15:48:18] - paul: where their household incomes wern't so hugely skewed, where their savings balances weren't so hugely skewed, where their children were in poverty at a similar rate to white children. where drug bu sts weren't intentionally designed to fuck with them. if those 10,000 pro-black cities already existed, then i'd be more suspect of their motivations. ~a
[2020-09-16 15:48:13] - paul: if there was already 10,000+ pro-black cities in existence. where black people weren't having a disproportionate number of negative interactions with law enforcement, where they weren't over-represented in our criminal justice system. where their healthcare wasn't objectively worse, where their youth weren't accruing violations, which leads to fines and failure to pay, which in turn leads to warrants and/or probation violations. ~a
[2020-09-16 15:40:45] - paul: the pro-white city is trying to make a city MORE pro-white than the already-pro-white cities. why would they want that? what possible good reason for making that could there be? i'll ask YOU to tell ME what their goals could possibly be. you already have pro-white cities, why do you need a MORE pro-white city? this is so fucking asymmetrical it hurts me, paul. so you tell me, "why?" ~a
[2020-09-16 15:33:57] - a: Okay, why do you have different assumptions? What do you think they would do differently? -Paul
[2020-09-16 15:29:22] - paul: yes, i do. but you've proven nothing with this scenario. if you replace "black" with "white", my obvious follow up question is "why?". you already have 19,500 cities in the united states that are pro-white. why are you looking to make another one? are the 19,500 pro-white cities in america not pro-white enough? well that's very interesting that the pro-white cities aren't pro-white enough. i have very different assumptions. ~a
[2020-09-16 15:26:02] - Daniel: "What I find frustrating in this is the perceived injury that you are upset by Paul that I don't think exists." So, let me ask you this: (A) If two equally qualified individuals are applying for a job and one is chosen based on their race, is the other harmed? (B) If somebody chooses to visit one business over another because of the race of the owners, is the non-visited business harmed? -Paul
[2020-09-16 15:24:35] - aDaniel: So, I thought of a much better way of presenting my point last night that hopefully will clarify things: Go back to my question about replacing "black" with "white" in the article. In those different cases, do you have different assumptions on how those groups would behave to pursue their vision? -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:38:24] - Some weird analogy might be that only men could vote and now women can vote and some men actively try to keep women from voting so someone started giving only women a ride to the polls. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:37:16] - What I find frustrating in this is the perceived injury that you are upset by Paul that I don't think exists. No one is taking away the rights of men to vote. No one is advocating for abusive wives. None of these analogies make any sense to me. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:31:47] - paul is a horrible racist. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:31:33] - Sorry, I gotta run to take care of the kids. I cede the floor for you all to call me a horrible racist now.
-Paul[2020-09-15 21:30:51] - paul: even if freedom wants to be racist, they still shouldn't be allowed to break the law. in the US everybody should have equal protection under the law. it doesn't always work (almost always to black peoples detriment) but its not like nobody will be holding freedom accountable. they'll still have elections and shit. citizens voting. racist mayors (eventually) getting ousted. judges judging. same shit as everywhere. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:30:38] - Daniel: I think it was wrong for women to not be able to vote, but I don't think that taking away the right to vote for men is justified now just to correct a past injustice, even if those effects might still be felt now. -paul
[2020-09-15 21:29:18] - Daniel: Okay, how about this analogy? Women didn't have the right to vote in the past. There was a power imbalance. In order to fix it, we should now take away the right for men to vote. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:27:36] - Depends on definition of reverse I guess. The goal is to correct systemic bias. So the goal isn't to end up at an end state where some other group is at a disadvantage but if you mean move the thumb to the other side of the scales in order to get balanced better then sure. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:24:15] - Daniel: "its not doing the reverse" How is it not doing the reverse? I thought the whole point was to do the reverse to course correct. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:22:50] - Paul: Your entire point seems to be that we should treat everyone the same and ignore the fact that we don't. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:22:14] - Paul: its not doing the reverse. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:22:00] - I don't understand what point you are trying to make. AA is trying to address the systemic bias inherent in whatever system its being applied to. So yes its acknowledging that just allowing people to hire / admit / whatever however they like resulted in something bad so they are trying to force a course correction. -Daneil
[2020-09-15 21:21:24] - paul: (not that i matter, but) i give them special consideration because of the history here. if they break the law, they're still governed by the laws of georgia and the united states. i (and most people, lets be honest) would not give special consideration to an explicit "pro-white" (or white power) city. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:20:43] - Daniel: What doesn't make sense about it? In the past blacks were disadvantaged in hiring because of racism. Affirmative action is an attempt at fixing that by doing the reverse. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:19:43] - Daniel: Every affirmative action hire has somebody who benefits, and somebody who loses. That is no different from racist hirings in the past. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:19:37] - Can we just stop using that analogy. It doesn't fit and doesn't make sense. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:19:18] - Paul: what now? -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:18:50] - Daniel: Oh, so minorities weren't being disadvantaged by being passed up for jobs in the past? -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:18:16] - a: Sure? But I think that's missing the point. Again, I get that there is racist past and that it might justify one side over the other, but this is not about that. This is about what the motivations are and how they are going to achieve their goals. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:18:01] - Again, thats the part you are inventing. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:17:46] - No, because no one is abusing the white people / male. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:15:33] - Daniel: I don't think I agree. In this case the male is white people and the female is the minority. The male/white people used to abuse the female/minority, now the female/minority gets to do the same thing to the male/white people. I think it fits. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:13:50] - paul: in this scenario, can we also replace "black" and "white" in the history of the united states? ~a
[2020-09-15 21:13:24] - Daniel: Exact same article. Replace black with white. Your thoughts? -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:12:47] - Because you are inventing the racist part of Freedom. Thats the problem here. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:12:17] - I still contend your analogy wasn't good. So if a woman has a history of abusive husbands and is then picking a new husband from candidates then AA would somehow be the policy that helps select a new husband from a disadvantaged group but that doesn't make sense here. Hence I don't like this analogy. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:11:35] - a: Again, this is crazy because I'm guessing I am more for individual people being free to make their own choices however they want, but I just don't understand the thinking that racism is bad when white people do it but laudable when everybody else does it.
-Paul[2020-09-15 21:11:12] - paul: two wrongs do not make a right. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:11:06] - paul: there is no revenge. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:10:08] - paul: i even specifically added in "or better". ~a
[2020-09-15 21:09:57] - paul: no such implication exists. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:09:42] - a: Right, and your implication is that the "respect" would not be good. We're back to the whole "revenge" narrative where somehow two "wrongs" make a right. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:08:32] - Daniel: In affirmative action there absolutely is. The white employee not getting hired. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:07:24] - paul: "What if a white owned bank wanted to invest?" again, they'll be shown the same respect (or better) as a black owned bank investing in any other "pro-white" town. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:06:47] - paul: it'd depend on specifics. for instance, the "diversifyoutdoors" is presumably on private land, and the town has many owners. so the rules/invitations will vary. "What if 50% of the people were white? 80%?" i don't see a problem with this. my guess is the mayor or whatever will treat the white members of his town with the same (or better) respect that black people are treated with in the many many "pro-white" towns. ~a
[2020-09-15 21:06:37] - There still is no third husband. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 21:03:57] - Daniel: Okay.... I don't think that answers my question. The woman abusing her third husband is addressing an imbalance of power too. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:03:08] - a: You really think they would be happy to see me show up? What if 50% of the people were white? 80%? What if a white owned bank wanted to invest? Again, I'm actually probably not as critical of this as it sounds here but I am baffled by this idea that there will be absolutely no discrimination going on with this town and people of all races will be welcomed equally. -Paul
[2020-09-15 21:00:56] - paul: oops, never mind. they address you further down: "Unless you’re a Negative Nancy, we can’t make no promises for you sis" ~a
[2020-09-15 21:00:54] - AA at its core is addressing an imbalance of power. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:59:37] - Daniel: "AA is looking to address the imbalance of power which you seem to acknowledge but don't want to do anything about." Right, so AA is at its core, making hiring decisions based on race. It is that example I gave about the black employer not hiring a white employee because of past discrimination. I am asking if you are okay with that rationale. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:59:20] - paul: the hashtag is literally diversifyoutdoors. you're invited. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:58:22] - ashley scott and renee walters. there is no "he". lets get into the gender aspects of freedom next
~a[2020-09-15 20:58:15] - a: I thought it was a she too, but I was bouncing off of Daniel's "that guy" -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:57:35] - Daniel: http://thefreedomgeorgiainitiative.com/2020/08/03/big-black-campout-diversifyoutdoors/ You really think they would be 100% fine with me showing up to their big black campout? Look, believe it or not I'm not 100% against what they're doing here, I just feel like we need to call it what it is. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:56:43] - he? i thought it was a she. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:56:39] - Daniel: Sorry, tried to do more research into this since we're all talking based on one article. Here's another: https://www.insider.com/freedom-georgia-initiative-georgia-land-community-2020-9 "Scott told Insider that the initiative is focused on building the community from the ground up with the help of Black-owned businesses, like banks and contractors, but the area will be open to everyone eventually." -paul
[2020-09-15 20:55:39] - Daniel: No, I'm saying he was telling the truth when he was asked about it being an all-black town and, instead of refuting it, he doubled down. Again, if this was a white person doing this then there would be no question what they were trying to do. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:51:04] - Paul: Why do you think that? Again I thnk you are literally inventing this position out of air given the direct quote from the article. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:50:36] - AA is looking to address the imbalance of power which you seem to acknowledge but don't want to do anything about. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:50:08] - Daniel: "But if you or I wanted to go move there I think we totally could." I seriously doubt I could move there and there would be no problems.
-Paul[2020-09-15 20:49:55] - Its all black because its started as all black. Not as a future looking rule for the town. Your position is directly refuted by the next line of the article which is an actual quote. So I still don't understand, you just are saying that guy is lying? -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:48:54] - Daniel: But this is just complicating matters since it is a separate issue we disagree with. Let's just use affirmative action as an example here (assuming you support it). -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:48:20] - Daniel: The fact that when asked why they wanted an all-black town, their response was "it has been that way for generations", the fact that the article talked at length about previous all black towns, the fact that if you replaced "black" with "white" then I assume you would have no doubt that it was a racist town... -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:47:52] - Thats how its different and is the point. That every other city has so much racism that these people felt their best solution was to just go start a new one. That would be a better way for them to get a place to live without racism. But if you or I wanted to go move there I think we totally could. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:46:03] - Paul: Because its started by black people so presumably won't have the systemic racism found in other towns. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:45:37] - Like you are inventing the racist i won't hire you because you are white part. Where is that part in Freedom? Where is that in real life? Could it exist and some black person be racist? Sure. But I don't see it in that article about Freedom -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:45:15] - Daniel: Well, in this case, I was talking about things like affirmative action, but I believe it fits here because I DO believe that it implies some sort of preferential treatment towards blacks.. otherwise how is it different from the founding of any other town? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:44:13] - I think you are equating Freedom with the black employer not hiring a white guy because he is white. But that isn't what Freedom is from what I read in the article. Its creating a black company so that prospective black employees have somewhere to apply where they won't be rejected because of racism. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:42:39] - But there is no third husband? Starting Freedom is the equivalent of moving out on her own. I don't understand the position you are inventing for them. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:41:49] - "Isn't that just affirmative action?" Exactly. And I am wondering if you are okay with it when it is presented that nakedly. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:41:20] - Paul: Oh sorry I misread. not aa. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:41:07] - Daniel: "Its a woman who lived with two abusive husbands and then moved out on her own and you are upset with her about it" No, I'm the one who is completely fine with her moving out on her own. That's the equivalent of leaving her alone that you previously criticized me for. I only have an issue when she does the same thing that was done to her to somebody else. -paul
[2020-09-15 20:39:50] - Paul: Isn't that just affirmative action? -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:39:34] - paul: depends on the situation. obviously, if she's breaking the law she's breaking the law, and she should be punished. but, if she's in court and the judge is handing down his ruling, the fact that she was abused in her past two relationships should be considered by the judge. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:39:19] - Paul: Your analogy doesn't fit. There is no abuse a third husband. Its a woman who lived with two abusive husbands and then moved out on her own and you are upset with her about it. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:38:17] - a: And what special consideration would that be? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:37:59] - Daniel: If some black employer said, outright, to a white potential employee that he wasn't hiring him based on his skin color and because of past discrimination, would you be okay with that? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:37:29] - paul: "well, her past husbands abused her and had all the power so let's let her have special consideration" that's what i would say instead. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:36:33] - Daniel: Again, I don't see that as justification for doing something wrong, though. Again, two wrongs don't make a right. Can't we agree on that? If a woman was abused by her past two husbands and then decides to abuse her third husband we don't say, "well, her past husbands abused her and had all the power so let's let her have this one". -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:33:44] - paul: if it matters, i'm not super sold on affirmative action. i know being pro "freedom" and neutral on affirmative-action, might seem like a disconnect, but it's just where i am right now. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:31:37] - a: "inferior standing" != "inferior" Right, and that's fair. That's what I was trying to get at with the "genetic vs societal" thing. Because I feel like your "asymmetry" argument hinges on the idea that blacks, as a group, have inferior social standing BECAUSE OF RACIST HISTORICAL POLICIES (please don't quote me out of context). -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:31:18] - paul: if i have an inferior understanding of math because of some past injustice, i'm not inferior. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:31:04] - Paul: But one side currently holds the power so just saying EVERYONE LETS GET ALONG and then not doing anything about the current situation doesn't really do anything for those being shit on. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:29:19] - Daniel: Racism is wrong to me. And I don't care which race is doing it. If a white person didn't hire a black person because he was a racist asshole, I don't see any justice in a black person NOT hiring a white person as some sort of revenge or cosmic justice. -paul
[2020-09-15 20:28:28] - Danel: "You're argument is weird to me" YES! Believe it or not I think that whole statement is very close and we're close to understanding. Yes, I think everybody should be treated the same (I assume we all agree here). I am NOT ignoring that people aren't treated the same. I am saying two wrongs don't make a right. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:27:51] - daniel: 999/1000 = 99.9%. mafs. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:27:14] - paul: "inferior standing" != "inferior". ~a
[2020-09-15 20:27:11] - Paul: White people make cities with pro white policies all the time. I would argue like 99.9% of cities fall in that category (I did not do any actual math for that statement). -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:26:47] - a: "especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another" But isn't it? As I understand your argument, blacks have an especially inferior standing in American society (due to all sorts of racist policies in the past) that they need things like affirmative action. -paul
[2020-09-15 20:25:28] - paul: well "SHOULD" could have multiple meanings really. "SHOULD", sure, should in today's world, that's how it should be. really how it should be is less inequality, but we aren't there. yet. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:25:26] - Paul: You're argument is weird to me. I think you are arguing that everyone should be treated the same (which isn't bad and is a good goal) but seems to ignore that people aren't treated the same. So in an effort to get to people being treated the same we have to recognize that maybe some people need help because there are those out there actively trying to hold them down. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:25:06] - Daniel: If you're talking about the people of Freedom not saying that they wanted an all-black city, then let me ask you the same question I asked Adrian: Would you be okay if "black" was replaced by "white"? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:24:22] - paul: i wouldn't ever say special privileges. i'd say special considerations. which you might see a distinction without a difference, but i do not. anyways this isn't "especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another" so i'm pretty sure i'm safe (according to that definition). ~a
[2020-09-15 20:24:00] - a: "i think this is accurate" To be clear, do you think this is how it SHOULD be or how it currently is? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:22:51] - a: "they don't have to be genetic, no" Well, isn't your whole "asymmetrical" argument that blacks have inferior opportunities due to society and thus should be granted certain special privileges? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:22:47] - paul: "depending on the color of your skin, some things are okay to do and some things are not" if we're not talking about the law, and we're talking about behavior in general, i think this is accurate. i can come up with some examples, but i'm sure you can think of some where this would apply. hell, i could probably point you at a first season episode of the office that would apply. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:21:19] - Daniel: "No one said that." No one said what? -paul
[2020-09-15 20:21:04] - a: Yes, that part. -paul
[2020-09-15 20:20:49] - paul: they don't have to be genetic, no. not sure what you're getting at, because the definition includes "especially so as to". it's not "or". ~a
[2020-09-15 20:19:59] - Paul: No one said that. The people of Freedom didn't say that. They wanted a city where there wouldn't be institutional racism so they made their own city. There are no regulations against white people. No policies against white people. You are inventing that entire side. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:19:39] - paul: is what an accurate representation? the "depending on the color of your skin, some things are okay to do and some things are not" part? or something else? ~a
[2020-09-15 20:18:37] - a: I assume those characteristics would have to be genetic for you? Ie, the characteristics can't be societal? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:17:26] - a: So I guess my question to you is: Is that at all an accurate representation? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:17:23] - paul: "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another". that's one i'm tentatively ok with. there are others. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:16:49] - a: Sure. I'm just trying to (legitimately!) understand what your guys' definition of racism is, because what it sounds like to me right now is that, depending on the color of your skin, some things are okay to do and some things are not. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:15:19] - paul: am i allowed to look at a dictionary? ~a
[2020-09-15 20:14:57] - daniel: "You're version of right seems to want people to not try and solve their problems with racism by starting a new city where they are in charge" I don't know if I follow, but let me ask you this: Is it okay (to you) or not if somebody outright states that they want to live in a neighborhood that is mostly black? Now what if they said mostly white? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:13:35] - paul: probably, i did not refuse. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:13:09] - a: Ah, okay, yes, I know that. Can you remind me: What was your definition of racism again? Did you refuse to answer that? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:12:23] - a: The supreme court isn't of Paul's opinion either. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:11:39] - paul: no. not that one. the sentence you first used with the word "opinion" in it. your post that starts with "i'm of the opinion that..." ~a
[2020-09-15 20:11:36] - Paul: You're version of right seems to want people to not try and solve their problems with racism by starting a new city where they are in charge so I'm not sure your version of "right" is very right. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:10:49] - paul: it would not be ok to me. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:10:29] - paul: yeah, i don't follow your hypothetical. lots of people say this. what would i think of that? i'd think something of something snarky? i don't know how i'm supposed to contribute to the hypothetical. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:10:13] - a: " i'm strictly not of that opinion" In response to my "pro-white town" question? Why not? Why does one asymmetry count and another doesn't? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:09:26] - Daniel: "drastically ignore the context and history of our country and world" I'm not ignoring it at all, I'm just saying I don't think it magically makes everything right. -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:09:22] - daniel: and some, i assume, are good people. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:08:28] - Paul: I mean isn't that just the R party? Trump said he didn't want Mexicans because they were rapists.... -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:07:38] - paul: i'm strictly not of that opinion, in case it hasn't been made clear here.
~a[2020-09-15 20:07:00] - Paul: Everyone gets to have their opinions but yours seems to drastically ignore the context and history of our country and world. Over time perhaps we'll get there but there is a reason that things like affirmative action and towns like freedom exist. Because racism is real and in some areas rampant so people try to find solutions to that reality. -Daniel
[2020-09-15 20:06:47] - a: Okay, so speaking of asymmetry, what if a white person said that they wanted to live in a "Pro-white town" because blacks commit crime at a higher rate? Would that be okay to you? -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:02:54] - a: I'm of the opinion that if you take any article / law / opinion and replace all instances of one race or ethnicity with another, then it shouldn't really change all that much from a mortality standpoint. I think "I only want to hire whites" and "I only want to hire blacks" is about the same. Or "I don't want to live next to hispanics" vs "I don't want to live next to whites". -Paul
[2020-09-15 20:01:31] - paul: not the tiniest bit weird, no. you can't wave away the asymmetry, because that's literally the only reason i don't feel the tiniest bit weird. ~a
[2020-09-15 20:00:18] - a: Even accepting all the asymmetry that you mentioned, don't you find it the tiniest bit weird that if you replaced the word "black" with the word "white" in that article that you would have such a hugely different reaction to it? -Paul
[2020-09-15 19:58:13] - a: At it's heart, this goes back to our long running debate where I find it frustrating that the assumption from "you" (and I don't necessarily mean to single out you, but more the left in general with you and Daniel as proxies) is that something like "All Lives Matter" is monstrously racist, but a "pro-black" town with every indication that they want to make it as black as possible is perfectly fine. -Paul
[2020-09-15 19:55:37] - And I totally get why, from a historical perspective, you might think it is far more justifiable for blacks to want their own "pro-black" town versus whites wanting their own "pro-white" town. I get the asymmetry there. But I don't understand why that requires assuming such drastically different motivations. -Paul
[2020-09-15 19:55:03] - paul: i think i understand your point now. maybe. still the same answer though: the situation isn't symmetrical. if they found a city that is "pro black" and it ends up being "exclusively black" (illegally) then at that time we can address the illegality of their behavior. if the races are reversed, id still say "this isn't symmetrical" based on all the reasons i gave below, and i'd say "no" to yet another fucking "pro white" city. ~a
[2020-09-15 19:51:02] - But, as mentioned, it can't be 100% black because of integrated families and I imagine that nakedly saying you want as black a town as possible would probably run up against anti-discrimination laws. -Paul
[2020-09-15 19:49:53] - Daniel: What Adrian said, and also, why did the article have an entire section specifically talking about previous all-black cities? This one gets filed in the "I can't believe people can disagree with me" thing we were talking before. It seems patently obvious from everything in the article that the motivations are to have a town which is as black as possible. -Paul
[2020-09-15 19:48:32] - a: Right, that might be a reason to think they are justified in wanting.... whatever it is they are wanting, but I don't understand why that should change the benefit of the doubt you give to their motivations. Otherwise you are basically saying that because blacks have it bad, they can never have bad motivations. -Paul
[2020-09-15 19:47:44] - daniel: (to be clear, i'm on your side here, just presenting another part of the article) FTA: "Scott and Walters say they've gotten questions about why they want to create an all-Black city. Their response? It's something that's been done for generations". why did they say "It's something that's been done for generations", without correcting the assumption from the question, that it was an "all black city"? ~a
prev <-> next