Although I agree with the thrust of your edit, I’d actually be okay with making the swap if a black person from an underprivileged background told me that terms made him uncomfortable. But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background that’s insisting we say allowlist or Latinx.
No joke. I had a very Caucasian woman tell me why she was too “exhausted” to explain to me why America’s treatment of Muslims was abhorrent and damaging. I, an immigrant from a Muslim country who went to college in the south after 9/11, had possessed the temerity to say America had handled 9/11 with far more grace towards its Muslim population than Muslim countries would have done had the shoe been on the other foot, and praised George W. Bush’s handling of the issue. That was the wrong answer apparently.
But somehow it’s always a white woman from a privileged background
It's a pattern in part because of the way white women get socialized and the role they get assigned.
I'm not excusing it or saying it's okay. I'm just saying widespread patterns tend to be driven by larger forces.
I'm not going to say more than that because it tends to be a shit show to try to say anything about the whys and wherefores.
Yes, it needs to stop. Helping white women escape the role society assigns them would be a more effective means to address this than just pointing fingers and being blamey.
Are you sure what ICE is doing is really all that much different and what’s instead dramatically different is your awareness of every even borderline thing ICE is doing now?
Just how familiar were you, or are you for that matter, with the full scope of ICE’s activities circa 2015?
ICE was not routinely separating children from their families back in 2015. They weren't putting kids in fucking cages. This false equivalence is nonsense.
Remember that first iconic, heartwrenching photo of kids in fucking cages that started to circulate on social media? It was literally a photo from 2014 that was being misrepresented from the Trump era - and it keeps happening. Apparently some Democrat congressional members managed to misrepresent other photos from the same set just last month: https://nypost.com/2019/07/10/house-dems-use-obama-era-photo...
No-one described those kids in cages as kids in cages until Trump was elected. From what I could tell, only one local news outlet even ran with that shocking, arresting image of a kid in a cage looking into the camera when it was actually news.
You've been reading the book by Thomas Sowell. Though I don't understand why you bring up a reference that's about 300 years old. None of the people in the southern States have any ties to that place
If rich people move into the cities, and form little neighborhood clusters to exclude poor families, the schools will become more attractive by all standard measures.
Now, the trick is that it's much easier to build out segregated wealthy communities in the suburbs, than it is in cities, since tight geography works against the informal segregation of suburban development projects.
My sister just moved to Wyoming and has a daughter in school there. They live a few blocks from a school, but she's not able to attend that school because it's in high demand. Apparently parents are able to apply to go to any (public) school in the district, and are accepted based on a lottery with no preference given to proximity to the school. (I could be wrong about these details, this is just what she told me.)
I guess that system is designed in part to account for the effect you're describing - if one school starts to become known as a better school, the kids in the poor parts of town are just as likely to be able to get in as anyone else. I have no idea if it actually works that way, but I do know it's a pain for my sister who now has to drive her kids to school several miles away when they could easily walk to the closer one. Can't please everyone, I guess.
Be careful there at teasing out the real motivation. If you want "wealthy students" because poor people are icky, then you're a jerk. If you want "wealthy students" because you want schools to be well-funded, that means you do in fact want good schools.
How to tell the difference? Maybe by putting the person somewhere where all schools in a very large area are funded at the exact same level. I don't know. But assuming it's a dog whistle isn't a good idea.
Yes, we do have a measurement problem. I was going to propose a solution, but it's a hard problem and any solution will necessarily have side effects on the surrounding communities as well.
It's both or neither depending on how you want to look at it. The problem isn't any website or subculture, the problem is the entire overarching culture being created by digital natives that are coming into their own.
Internet induced sociopathy has infected an entire generation. No conversation is ever a conservation, everything is a performance for the benefit of third parties. Even face to face every conversion is haunted by what will this sound like when it is posted online. No one deserves the benefit of the doubt because they aren't real people, just words on a screen.
It's the so-called SJWs and the alt-right. It's GG and anti-GG. It's facebook and tumblr and twitter and reddit and lord knows 4chan.
It's sick, it's no ones fault, it's probably unfixable and that's heartbreaking.
This comment is akin to the farmers who tell us we need to subsidize them because without them we will all starve.
There are hundreds of millions of people who would very much like to come to the United States. They are ready and willing to start working and contributing taxes now. We can pick and chose the skills we need, not invest for 22+ years and hope for the best.
We only need the product you are selling because you use your political power to prevent your competitors, with a superior product, from entering the market.
The irony of appealing to immigration to justify child-hostile policies is that all those immigrants (me included) think westerners are crazy for being so child-hostile. Hispanics in the U.S. have a fertility rate of 3.
> all those immigrants (me included) think westerners are crazy for being so child-hostile.
Westerners in general isn't child-hostile, even if US labor practices are, and many of those immigrants -- including the Hispanic ones -- are Westerners themselves.
If they do all think we westerners are crazy (and I'm certainly not going to take your word for it), that isn't enough of a downside to leave us with a shortage of potential immigrants. Your argument about freeloaders is just plain wrong.
What we have going here is attractive enough that we have people lining up out the door. We don't desperately need you to do us a favor and bless society with your children, despite the fact that every parent seems to think we do.
It's not freeloading. It's a voluntary trade for value.
In any event, your logic is flawed. A person can easily be a net contributor over a lifetime without having children. And someone who has children, can easily be a net drain even after attributing some of the costs/contributions of the children (which may well also be negative).
> There are hundreds of millions of people who would very much like to come to the United States.
They aren't prevented from coming to the United States by people having children, they are prevented from coming to the United States by US immigration law (either because they are individually undesirable, or because they exceed the hard total or per-country caps in various permitted categories.)
"'We think the governance has opted for ubiquitous law enforcement.' Pham whistled softly. Now every embedded computing system, down to a child's rattle, was a governance utility. It was the most extreme form of social control ever invented. 'So now they have to run everything.' The notion was terribly seductive to the authoritarian mind ... The only trouble was, no despot had the resources to plan every detail in his society's behavior. Not even planet-wrecker bombs had as dire a reputation for eliminating civilizations."
And Trygve Ytre and Gunnar Larson? Larson was millennia dead, of course. The civilization at Ytre had barely outlived the man. There had been an era of ubiquitous law enforcement, and some kind of distributed terror. Most likely, Larson's own localizers had precipitated the end. All the wisdom, all the inscrutability, hadn't helped his world much.
