Jump to content

The Original Greaser Bob

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Original Greaser Bob

  1. 2 hours ago, Foosters said:

    seems I should have posted this in Hobbies --> Books instead. 

    or just pretend that the story is just 96 separate tweets and I'm sure you all can make it through

    Can I recommend The Power Broker by Robert Caro?  It's 4,632,592 tweets long. 

    • Haha 4
  2. 1 hour ago, Codaxx said:

    Those are 2 things the Texas offense does not do well. A&M is not a great tackling team, that is where I think Texas can get some explosives.

    My wife is making seven-layer dip for the game and by second half I'll have some explosives.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  3. 15 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    What does this even mean?

    I wrote:  They should also favor all forms of social inclusion but not politicize appropriate social behavior.

    I meant:  Dems should continue to make sure no individuals are excluded from educational or any other opportunities currently protected by discrimination laws and the Constitution but they need to not knee jerk attack every racist or sexist or anti-trans comment out there.  The haters are going to hate, and they aren't going to act right.  So what do the Dems get out of pointing out there are assholes in this world?  Nothing.

     

  4. 15 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    That's basically what they've been doing for the past several decades.

    No, I don't think so.  Dems would tell you that at the root of their policies they are trying to achieve color-blindness but the focus is on policies that to me seem to stress overstatement of racial differences.  Look at these two links:

    HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA - Democrats

    Fact Sheet: U.S. Efforts to Combat Systemic Racism | The White House 

    I'm saying the Dems can be lots less preachy and more focused on actual programs that provide economic assistance to all disadvantaged without making the focus on race.  In other words, combat systematic racism by combating systematic poverty.  This election shows that the division lines are class and education and not necessarily racial so the dems should market the policies towards class (opportuinty). 

    My point is that focusing purely on economic disparities domestically, dems can achieve more equality without giving the other side the weapon of attacking  them for "identify politics". 

    Yes, and its absolutely hypocritical argument but that's where we are.  

    EO 13985 sets up a comprehensive structure of equity committees and the like in federal government.  You tell me if the definition of "equity" under EO 13985 is as "color blind" or blind to identity politics as it could be.  

    Sec. 2 . Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

    My argument is that the definition should have been.

    Sec. 2 . Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

  5. 7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

    they are afraid of antagonizing the trans rights community by running candidates more willing to signal unfriendliness to their favored issues.

    The key is whether not putting trans rights on the front burner "signals unfriendliness".   

    Dems need to get over that fast.  I feel like I would fight really hard for various trans rights issues.  I think they are particularly put upon these days.  But there is existential shit going on right now that I would like us to prioritize.  As well as economic and educational opportunity.

  6. 4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    Egalitarianism as a concept is very popular and defending women, minorities, and gay and trans people as part of the fight for egalitarianism against the billionaires trying to divide us so they can treat us all like chattel should not be a hard message to sell.    

    This sentence captures what the problem is.  Are billionaires really trying to subdivide us into groups beyond the haves and the have nots?  By slicing and dicing people into genders and races and sexual identifications, we are dividing ourselves. 

    Let's stop.   I think trans people are in a unique situation but as far as others, we should help those who are economically disadvantages and stop putting them into groups. 

    Dems should pursue radically color and sex blind policies that are based solely on economic need.   They should also favor all forms of social inclusion but not politicize appropriate social behavior.

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
×
×
  • Create New...