Democratic Iowa Caucus: "An fing disaster"

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,549
1,743
oklahoma city
View attachment 77514

So here’s the basic philosophical difference in the 2 parties as illustrated by the responses to my post. If you watch the 2 conventions you will see FAR more references to race and gender at the Democratic convention. This is not a matter of opinion, but an easily verifiable point.

The Democrats believe we live in an unjust, bigoted society, towards people based on race, gender, sexual orientation and various other categories. The Republicans speak more towards the country as a homogeneous whole, but have learned they have to pay some lip service to the “protected classes”. (Binders of women)

The fact that Democrats make far more effort to divide us into categories and discuss the treatment of people based on those differences is not up for debate. The difference in perspective is based on the opinion of how necessary is it to make policy based on those categories and how much is gained by this more divisive approach? If you believe ours to be an overtly unjust society, this protected class approach is more just and necessary. If you believe this to be an imperfect but mostly just society you see this approach to be counter productive and often insincere.

If you look at pretty much any economic data such as net worth, employment rates, homeownership rates, salary etc and there are differences for minorities. It isn't how anyone feels or philosophy, it is simply data.

Now, given that there is data showing that there are significant differences, there are really only two ways those differences could exist. Either there are issues with the system that advantage certain groups, or there are innate abilities of certain groups to outperform the other. Or, I suppose a combination of both.

It is sort of like a football game. One team wins and one team loses. If the winning team says "That was a fairly officiated game and we came out ahead" you take that with a grain of salt. And, if the losing team says, "We got screwed by the refs" you also take that with a grain of salt. Only if a losing team says it was a fair game we just got beat does it seem that it is an unbiased assessment.

This is a long way to say, I don't have the answers, but I think your opinion of the party's beliefs could be jaded by the score of the game.
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,758
14,685
1,743
If you look at pretty much any economic data such as net worth, employment rates, homeownership rates, salary etc and there are differences for minorities. It isn't how anyone feels or philosophy, it is simply data.

.
Cultural differences can play a part. It's not PC to say that but another undeniable statistic is all those things you mentioned are impacted by single parent household versus two parent household, which statistically occurs more in minorities.

You want to improve your kid's chance of avoiding prison and going to college, get married and stay married.

Again, it's data.
 

jakeman

Unhinged Idiot
A/V Subscriber
Apr 4, 2005
7,390
6,903
1,743
Limbo
Hardly. I’d say more likely that Trump and his minions(including many of you) were quite effective at making Joe and Hunter look like crooks with nothing but innuendo and here say “evidence “, repeated over, and over, and over, and over.......again.
That’s fucking rich right there.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,549
1,743
oklahoma city
Cultural differences can play a part. It's not PC to say that but another undeniable statistic is all those things you mentioned are impacted by single parent household versus two parent household, which statistically occurs more in minorities.

You want to improve your kid's chance of avoiding prison and going to college, get married and stay married.

Again, it's data.
But that comes down to where to those cultural differences come from? Why is there a cultural difference in this area?
 

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,758
14,685
1,743
But that comes down to where to those cultural differences come from? Why is there a cultural difference in this area?
That's a tough question. The out of wedlock childbirth rate was pretty similar back in the 50's. Maybe you should ask some of the rappers and celebrities that glamorize such behavior.

Whatever it is, I doubt we can legislate our way out of it.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,100
40,703
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
But that comes down to where to those cultural differences come from? Why is there a cultural difference in this area?
That's a tough question. The out of wedlock childbirth rate was pretty similar back in the 50's. Maybe you should ask some of the rappers and celebrities that glamorize such behavior.

Whatever it is, I doubt we can legislate our way out of it.
At the turn of the 20th century progressives saw it as their business to drive the "evolution" of society. It was their business because they were "enlightened". Now it's simply about power.

If you really want to learn about progressivism, read the PHS's defenses of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
 

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
5,050
2,803
1,743
Valhalla
But that comes down to where to those cultural differences come from? Why is there a cultural difference in this area?
As much as I hate to say it for African Americans it likely goes back to the slavery era where breaking families apart was forced on them. Then you move into reconstruction and many of them had to move to cities to try and find jobs and survive, with a mass immigration to northern cities. This also was not conducive to keeping families together. Then you move forward in time and the welfare system is setup so that the best way to take advantage of it is to not be in a stable married parent household. They basically have had no cultural heritage that puts any stock into stable married parent households.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,006
31,549
1,743
oklahoma city
As much as I hate to say it for African Americans it likely goes back to the slavery era where breaking families apart was forced on them. Then you move into reconstruction and many of them had to move to cities to try and find jobs and survive, with a mass immigration to northern cities. This also was not conducive to keeping families together. Then you move forward in time and the welfare system is setup so that the best way to take advantage of it is to not be in a stable married parent household. They basically have had no cultural heritage that puts any stock into stable married parent households.
Exactly, with similar but different issues for Native Americans. Which makes saying that the playing field is now basically level kind of like playing a basketball game with the refs blatantly on your side until halftime then bringing in new refs while continuing to play and saying it is now the game is fair.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,982
5,486
1,743
Katy, TX
As much as I hate to say it for African Americans it likely goes back to the slavery era where breaking families apart was forced on them. Then you move into reconstruction and many of them had to move to cities to try and find jobs and survive, with a mass immigration to northern cities. This also was not conducive to keeping families together. Then you move forward in time and the welfare system is setup so that the best way to take advantage of it is to not be in a stable married parent household. They basically have had no cultural heritage that puts any stock into stable married parent households.
This is from 1998:
Black Progress: How far we’ve come, and how far we have to go
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-progress-how-far-weve-come-and-how-far-we-have-to-go/

This is just one section, overall a good read

The Widening Skills Gap

Why is there such a glaring racial gap in levels of educational attainment? It is not easy to say. The gap, in itself, is very bad news, but even more alarming is the fact that it has been widening in recent years. In 1971, the average African-American 17-year-old could read no better than the typical white child who was six years younger. The racial gap in math in 1973 was 4.3 years; in science it was 4.7 years in 1970. By the late 1980s, however, the picture was notably brighter. Black students in their final year of high school were only 2.5 years behind whites in both reading and math and 2.1 years behind on tests of writing skills.

Had the trends of those years continued, by today black pupils would be performing about as well as their white classmates. Instead, black progress came to a halt, and serious backsliding began. Between 1988 and 1994, the racial gap in reading grew from 2.5 to 3.9 years; between 1990 and 1994, the racial gap in math increased from 2.5 to 3.4 years. In both science and writing, the racial gap has widened by a full year.

There is no obvious explanation for this alarming turnaround. The early gains doubtless had much to do with the growth of the black middle class, but the black middle class did not suddenly begin to shrink in the late 1980s. The poverty rate was not dropping significantly when educational progress was occurring, nor was it on the increase when the racial gap began once again to widen. The huge rise in out-of-wedlock births and the steep and steady decline in the proportion of black children growing up with two parents do not explain the fluctuating educational performance of African-American children. It is well established that children raised in single-parent families do less well in school than others, even when all other variables, including income, are controlled. But the disintegration of the black nuclear family—presciently noted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan as early as 1965—was occurring rapidly in the period in which black scores were rising, so it cannot be invoked as the main explanation as to why scores began to fall many years later.

Some would argue that the initial educational gains were the result of increased racial integration and the growth of such federal compensatory education programs as Head Start. But neither desegregation nor compensatory education seems to have increased the cognitive skills of the black children exposed to them. In any case, the racial mix in the typical school has not changed in recent years, and the number of students in compensatory programs and the dollars spent on them have kept going up.

What about changes in the curriculum and patterns of course selection by students? The educational reform movement that began in the late 1970s did succeed in pushing students into a “New Basics” core curriculum that included more English, science, math, and social studies courses. And there is good reason to believe that taking tougher courses contributed to the temporary rise in black test scores. But this explanation, too, nicely fits the facts for the period before the late 1980s but not the very different picture thereafter. The number of black students going through “New Basics” courses did not decline after 1988, pulling down their NAEP scores.

We are left with three tentative suggestions. First, the increased violence and disorder of inner-city lives that came with the introduction of crack cocaine and the drug-related gang wars in the mid-1980s most likely had something to do with the reversal of black educational progress. Chaos in the streets and within schools affects learning inside and outside the classroom.

In addition, an educational culture that has increasingly turned teachers into guides who help children explore whatever interests them may have affected black academic performance as well. As educational critic E. D. Hirsch, Jr., has pointed out, the “deep aversion to and contempt for factual knowledge that pervade the thinking of American educators” means that students fail to build the “intellectual capital” that is the foundation of all further learning. That will be particularly true of those students who come to school most academically disadvantaged—those whose homes are not, in effect, an additional school. The deficiencies of American education hit hardest those most in need of education.

And yet in the name of racial sensitivity, advocates for minority students too often dismiss both common academic standards and standardized tests as culturally biased and judgmental. Such advocates have plenty of company. Christopher Edley, Jr., professor of law at Harvard and President Clinton’s point man on affirmative action, for instance, has allied himself with testing critics, labeling preferences the tool colleges are forced to use “to correct the problems we”ve inflicted on ourselves with our testing standards.” Such tests can be abolished—or standards lowered—but once the disparity in cognitive skills becomes less evident, it is harder to correct.

Closing that skills gap is obviously the first task if black advancement is to continue at its once-fast pace. On the map of racial progress, education is the name of almost every road. Raise the level of black educational performance, and the gap in college graduation rates, in attendance at selective professional schools, and in earnings is likely to close as well. Moreover, with educational parity, the whole issue of racial preferences disappears.