CatBus

chyron8472 said:

I mean, it’s not all about white racists, or else Obama would have lost.

It’s worth reading the article. First of all racism was the main reason, but not the only reason. The data bears this out. And secondly, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney were making explicit appeals to racists. To white supremacists, there really isn’t any difference between a black president and a white president who doesn’t think he’s inherently better than black people. So racists decided Romney/Obama on non-racial terms (economics), or sat it out.

chyron8472 said:

I wish someone could explain to me the appeal of Trump. Why the heck do people (still) like him? It’s like with Sarah Palin… there are people who like her, but WHY?!? I just can’t even.

1. He’s (supposedly) rich. No doubt about it, Americans love rich people and over-the-top opulence. Why? Because 1) You have to be inherently good to be rich (Calvinism), and 2) I wanna be like that someday and I can live vicariously through their success.
2. He’s a honey badger. Literally no shits to give about anything or anybody who’s not him. And it’s so entertaining that it’s easy to forget that this includes you.
3. He’s unpolished. Which is how his serial lying actually makes him seem more honest to his supporters.
4. He’s racist. It’s no coincidence he kicked off his Presidential exploration by becoming the world’s loudest birther, just as that movement was starting to reach maximum idiocy. And the hits just kept coming. And yes, this causes people to like him.
5. He’s unqualified. Every public official leaves a trail of political decisions you can criticize. He leaves a trail of bankruptcies, fraud lawsuits, and unpaid bills, but see reason #1 for why none of that matters. He was, in the mind of far too many, a blank slate. People literally thought there was no way to predict what he’d do, which was appealing. These were the people waiting for the “pivot to the general” and then waiting for the “pivot to acting presidential” and now still “giving him a fair chance” in spite of the ongoing pileup of evidence that he’s just as bad as everyone else predicted.

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

This article’s making the rounds, and making Democrats nervous:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/

To break with tradition around here, I’ll announce that I’m mostly in agreement with this article. You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost. Not that talking about why you lost is politically easy either, but that’s another issue.

I pretty much agree, and I think I said as much back in November. Of course, it’s a complicated issue. The racism and the economics are intertwined - people losing their jobs are blaming immigrants and people who don’t like paying taxes are blaming minorities on welfare. So I think it makes sense to talk economics and try to shift the blame to where it really lies.

The problem with facing the racism head on, as Clinton found out, is people don’t really like being called deplorable. If Dems don’t want to keep being labeled elitist, it won’t really help to criticize the populace. That’s why Warren and Sanders went at it the way they did - if the Dems have any hope in winning back the votes they lost, they can’t afford to be calling those people bigots.

Agree it’s hard to talk about head-on, but disagree about Sanders really understanding. Warren maybe. But Sanders has had this particular blind spot for the twenty-odd years I’ve been following him. It’s just the way he views the world, and it’s really not that unusual.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost.

Which is why I believe Hillary had no hope. She still doesn’t understand why she lost, but continues to blame it entirely on Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia. Surely Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia had some part to play, but that doesn’t explain her losing so many swing states that Obama won handidly.

Oh, she knows how racial politics work (see the 2008 primary fight). I think for her it’s a matter of knowing but not being able to say so in a way that’s politically helpful. Basket of deplorables and all that–she had her finger right on it, but it was used against her. She’s not about to do that again.

White Northern Democrats and socialists tend to have a built-in blind spot for race. They view everything through the lenses of class, and see racial issues only as class issues distributed disproportionately–you fix class issues, and all race problems magically disappear. I love Bernie’s policies, but he’s got this bad. I think this may be the only issue I think Hillary’s got a better handle on.

EDIT: er, didn’t mean to self-quote, thought I was editing, not sure what happened.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost.

Which is why I believe Hillary had no hope. She still doesn’t understand why she lost, but continues to blame it entirely on Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia. Surely Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia had some part to play, but that doesn’t explain her losing so many swing states that Obama won handidly.

Oh, she knows how racial politics work (see the 2008 primary fight). I think for her it’s a matter of knowing but not being able to say so in a way that’s politically helpful. Basket of deplorables and all that–she had her finger right on it, but it was used against her. She’s not about to do that again.

TV’s Frink said:

I cannot get enough of this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

Great way to hide your white supremacist vocabulary there Steve. Then again, this wasn’t in public, where he usually tones that angle down. I guess in private he’s a real Mensch. Übermensch, that is.

This article’s making the rounds, and making Democrats nervous:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/

To break with tradition around here, I’ll announce that I’m mostly in agreement with this article. You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost. Not that talking about why you lost is politically easy either, but that’s another issue.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?

All they have to do is change the rules back before the next election.

Won’t this encourage the Dems to do the same thing when they get control of the Senate?

Not when, but if.

So you don’t think the Dems will ever regain control of the Senate?

In the short term, 2016 was the best opportunity for the Dems to retake the Senate. Have you seen the 2018 Senate map? That’s what I’d call a “Dems lose 5 seats” map. 2020 looks good for the Dems, but not good enough to come back from a deficit that big, so the earliest they need to worry about that is 2022. In the meantime, Republicans almost have enough legislatures to start monkeying with the Constitution directly, and repealing the 17th Amendment has always been a dare-to-dream Conservative longshot wishlist item. Once that’s done, the Dems can win all the votes they want in 2022 (and beyond) and still can’t take the Senate. It will be just like the House today, where all the pundits just assume it doesn’t matter how well the Dems do with the voters, the Republicans will retain control.

I think it unlikely that the 17th Amendment will get repealed. Remember, in order to do so, you have pass another amendment. To do that, it needs to pass no only Congress(where 2/3rds is needed), but also 3/4ths of the state legislatures(which means 38 of the states would have to pass it). Even if it were to pass. It would mean that the state governments themselves would pick the US Senators. Each state could decide to allow the voters to elect them or the state legislature could pick them(is the Dems controlled the majority of said state legislature, they would no doubt pick Dems to be that state’s US Senators). The Dems could still gain control of the Senate.

I’d certainly like to believe that an opposition party could someday take one of the branches of government, or one of the houses of the legislative branch. That’s pretty much the definition of a functional democracy.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?

All they have to do is change the rules back before the next election.

Won’t this encourage the Dems to do the same thing when they get control of the Senate?

Not when, but if.

In the short term, 2016 was the best opportunity for the Dems to retake the Senate. Have you seen the 2018 Senate map? That’s what I’d call a “Dems lose 5 seats” map. 2020 looks good for the Dems, but not good enough to come back from a deficit that big, so the earliest they need to worry about that is 2022. In the meantime, Republicans almost have enough legislatures to start monkeying with the Constitution directly, and repealing the 17th Amendment has always been a dare-to-dream Conservative longshot wishlist item. Once that’s done, the Dems can win all the votes they want in 2022 (and beyond) and still can’t take the Senate. It will be just like the House today, where all the pundits just assume it doesn’t matter how well the Dems do with the voters, the Republicans will retain control.

Ryan McAvoy said:

CatBus said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

There are plenty of reasons to loathe Trumpy without making crap up.

If he backs up his words, and takes some positive decisive action to rid the world of a fiend who uses chemical weapons on innocent people, I will applaud him for it.

So said the people who thought W. was justified for going into Iraq. And how long did we have people over there? Oh wait, we still do.

I didn’t mean invade Syria.

But that is what it means. Nature abhors a vacuum.

So we just let Assad do what he likes?

As sad as it is to say, yeah, pretty much. However bad Assad is, he’s a lot better than Isis. The best we can hope for is when/if Assad and Russia have defeated Isis, he can be pressured into stepping down. Stalin was a monster too but when faced with something even worse, the west has to go with the “Enemy of my enemy, is my friend” rational. It’s all very depressing.

Actually Assad’s hold on power pretty much exists entirely at the pleasure of Putin. So there’s an alternate path, where you replace Assad with another Putin-friendly monster who simply hasn’t had the time or opportunity to get as much blood on his hands. The west can walk away calling it a win, because Assad is gone, Putin can walk away calling it a win, because it’s still their puppet. It could be another ten years before the new leader proves as bad or worse than Assad.

Yes, that’s what I was referring to when I said “he can be pressured into stepping down”. I think we agree… agree that it’s a horrible situation.

And I think it goes without saying, that helping refugees fleeing this long-running cluster will be the lowest possible priority for all parties involved.

Ryan McAvoy said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

There are plenty of reasons to loathe Trumpy without making crap up.

If he backs up his words, and takes some positive decisive action to rid the world of a fiend who uses chemical weapons on innocent people, I will applaud him for it.

So said the people who thought W. was justified for going into Iraq. And how long did we have people over there? Oh wait, we still do.

I didn’t mean invade Syria.

But that is what it means. Nature abhors a vacuum.

So we just let Assad do what he likes?

As sad as it is to say, yeah, pretty much. However bad Assad is, he’s a lot better than Isis. The best we can hope for is when/if Assad and Russia have defeated Isis, he can be pressured into stepping down. Stalin was a monster too but when faced with something even worse, the west has to go with the “Enemy of my enemy, is my friend” rational. It’s all very depressing.

Actually Assad’s hold on power pretty much exists entirely at the pleasure of Putin. So there’s an alternate path, where you replace Assad with another Putin-friendly monster who simply hasn’t had the time or opportunity to get as much blood on his hands. The west can walk away calling it a win, because Assad is gone, Putin can walk away calling it a win, because it’s still their puppet. It could be another ten years before the new leader proves as bad or worse than Assad.

The question is: what purpose does keeping Assad in power serve for Putin, and can that purpose be met via alternate means? My opinion for a long time is that Assad is a walking advertisement for the benefits of a cozy relationship with Russia, if you’re an unpopular leader. Even if he’s forced out, it will have to be a protected safe-retirement out that won’t spook potential Russian clients.

TV’s Frink said:

Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nuking-the-filibuster-may-hurt-republicans-in-the-long-run/

I doubt it. The idea of protecting minorities of elected representatives is a little anachronistic, when the more modern idea of designing the election process to ensure the correct minority of voters chooses the majority of the elected representatives allows you to more than just block the majority, but impose outright minority rule.

Well, we are a bit of an echo chamber. We have a statistically improbable number of Bernie supporters here. As such, it’s simply logical that we should agree on most matters.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve literally not heard a single person try to blame Trump for that and I can’t imagine anyone would do so.

Conspiracy theories often include conspiracy theories about what other people believe. It’s part of the template.

I live in ground zero ganjaland USA. When it was legalized recreationally, everyone was joking that there’d be a new permanent blue haze in town, or at least near the college. I sure believed it. But there’s been no change at all. Maybe because usage was already so high, who knows, but really absolutely no change since legalization. So basically the same people are still getting high and playing hackey sack, the same people are still eyeing them nervously, state drug rehab programs are now a little better funded, and international cartels are now a little less well funded.

Looks like Senator Merkley is doing an honest-to-God filibuster, a talking one. I can’t remember the last time that’s actually happened, although I recall Senator Paul once talked a lot and called it a filibuster, even though it really was just talking a lot.

Irony broke a few weeks back. Anyone know when they plan to get it up and running again?

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Having observed many of them perform at a VERY high level in my technical classes, I’ve wondered whether it is rightly considered a disability at all?

Well, that depends on how you define disability:

• It’s a significant difference from the norm (not neurotypical)
• It’s not transitory (i.e. not like the neurological effects of eating certain mushrooms)
• It can potentially impede or cause difficulty with day-to-day activities, without some sort of accommodation (classrooms are possibly the easiest place for them, but lunchrooms could be baffling)

Now, if you think there’s more to the definition of disability, then maybe it doesn’t fit. But the fact that someone can “pass” doesn’t make them not disabled. In fact, it can make things a lot more complicated because they still may need the accommodation, but nobody recognizes/respects that fact.

This has been a huge concern for us as our daughter has progressed through (and changed) school(s). First to get an official diagnosis, then to get services, and finally to retain services. There is sometimes the attitude that “oh, she’s doing great, she doesn’t need services anymore” when the services are a large part of the reason she’s doing so well.

Yep. That fight never ends, I’m sorry to report.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Having observed many of them perform at a VERY high level in my technical classes, I’ve wondered whether it is rightly considered a disability at all?

Well, that depends on how you define disability:

• It’s a significant difference from the norm (not neurotypical)
• It’s not transitory (i.e. not like the neurological effects of eating certain mushrooms)
• It can potentially impede or cause difficulty with day-to-day activities, without some sort of accommodation (classrooms are possibly the easiest place for them, but lunchrooms could be baffling)

Now, if you think there’s more to the definition of disability, then maybe it doesn’t fit. But the fact that someone can “pass” doesn’t make them not disabled. In fact, it can make things a lot more complicated because they still may need the accommodation, but nobody recognizes/respects that fact. And autism is really honestly not that well-defined, and it covers a huge range of people–many of whom could not pass as easily. So those in your classroom may not be representative of the whole spectrum.

Also, just in general for everyone–meet someone with a disability and talklisten to them. While I’m sure it’s important to get answers to your own questions, if you meet a deaf person and start right in with cochlear implants, you’re more likely to get punched in the face than get an answer.

Also, we are all AFAICT extrapolating from not a lot of data. I have a few deaf friends, but they are all adults without children. I’ve seen a documentary and have taken some ASL classes (and I’m pretty much shit at all languages, soak in the irony). That’s my total net exposure to the whole deaf community. I have some autistic friends, but they are all high functioning/asperger’s end of the spectrum. And I’ve seen Rain Man, and have seen a few episodes of Parenthood. That’s about it for autism and me. It’s actually been great that Jeebus has been here for this discussion, I just wish we didn’t have to make arguments-by-proxy for the deaf.

EDIT: Re: other stuff. I often use “you” conversationally, like “You’re here today, you’re gone tomorrow”, when I don’t mean literally you, but just your generic person. “One” is too stuffy. “They” too impersonal, sometimes.

And when ASL is your first language, and then you learn English, then English is your second language, with all the complexities of a second language (let me assure you, the grammar is way different, because I think ASL is derived from French–so it may actually be easier to learn French as your–dang, I did it again!–second language) Your second language could even be another sign language, which wouldn’t necessarily be much easier.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

I think “saying people should make a different choice” is fundamentally different than “denying people a choice.” It seems we’re not going to agree here.

I suppose it ok to advise someone not the take the cure, as long it is remains that person’s choice.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

Cure to some, changing their identity from a deaf person to a hearing person to others. Will opting them out as a child mean they’ll be unable to take an implant when they turn 18? Nope, that choice is still out there for them to freely make–a very different scenario from Christian Scientists who don’t let their kids have antibiotics.

1. we were also talking about autism. Curing autism in order to do any good, would have to be done before brain development.

I’m not actually sure that’s the case. While autism starts to present around age 2, that’s not because the kids are neurotypical until age 2 (that fallacy is, in fact, the core argument of the antivax folks). The behaviors or neurotypical and autistic zero-to-two-year-olds are often simply too similar to distinguish. Now, there are some early-intervention-type therapies which help build skills at a young age, and that’s a different thing entirely, and early diagnosis and intervention is great. But it’s skill-building, not a cure. You’ve probably got autism as a zygote–which, yes, is technically before brain development, but probably earlier than you were thinking. And you’ve still got autism after your early intervention therapies help you more easily pass for neurotypical.

2. As for deaf people, yeah they can opt for an implant at age 18, there can be problems with that. Speech for example. In order to be able to speak normally, they would have to get the implants as a child. I think it would be much easier as a child, when they are in a school environment already. I suppose they could get the implants at 18 and still learn to speak normally, but it could take several years. Also if you deny them the implants until age 18, you deny a childhood of being able to hear. Think about that.

I’m sure they take that into consideration. I’m not sure what their answer is on that one, but it may have been covered in the documentary. Probably something along the lines of their language skills still develop normally using ASL, and lots of people have difficulty with their second language. Although that’s pretty lazy–at least grade-school-level exposure does help with picking up second languages. But it’s a common laziness, at least here in the states where it seems learning any second language is a late-teen thing, if at all.

Warbler said:

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

I think “saying people should make a different choice” is fundamentally different than “denying people a choice.” It seems we’re not going to agree here.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

Cure to some, changing their identity from a deaf person to a hearing person to others. Will opting them out as a child mean they’ll be unable to take an implant when they turn 18? Nope, that choice is still out there for them to freely make–a very different scenario from Christian Scientists who don’t let their kids have antibiotics.

darth_ender said:

And his disciples asked him, “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.”

John 9:2-3

On another unrelated note, my state’s Lieutenant Governor is blind. In addition to being whip-smart, Rhodes scholar and all that, he’s also… an accomplished photographer.

Yeah, me neither. I got nothing. But good for him in spite of my awkward head scratching. Clearly the works of someone are manifest in the guy.

And yeah, I think he’s kinda wasted on the Lieutenant Governor’s office. He’s got way too much talent for such small potatoes positions.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

Transgender is an identity. Pressuring them to have a sex change, or shaming them into having a sex change, or withholding some other sort of accommodation just because they won’t have a sex change like a reasonable person, those would all be comparable to what we’re discussing. Someone choosing to have a sex change and then doing it? Not a problem.

Yet it seems to be a problem when it comes to the deaf person choosing to get the implants to be able to hear.

According to who? You posted the video, but who has a problem with this? I think this might be where we’re talking past each other to some degree. I’ve already said many deaf people do in fact choose cochlear implants, and that society as a whole is very supportive of this, even to the point of subtly pressuring them to make the very choice you’re saying they’re being denied. Deaf advocates aren’t preventing people from getting implants, they’re just trying to remind people choosing not to get implants is a valid choice, at a minimum, and that it’s a better choice in their opinions.

Regarding parents deciding things for their children. That happens all the time on many fronts. It’s the condition of being a minor, and has very little to do specifically with disability.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

Transgender is an identity. Pressuring them to have a sex change, or shaming them into having a sex change, or withholding some other sort of accommodation just because they won’t have a sex change like a reasonable person, those would all be comparable to what we’re discussing. Someone choosing to have a sex change and then doing it? Not a problem.