What are
/r/centrist's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/centrist:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/centrist:
SemanticScholar
Parler
The Weather Channel
Google Podcasts
IPFS
Bypass Paywalls
Startpage
Brave Search
Memrise
GeoGebra
Cambridge Dictionary
Wordnik
Disqus
Airtable
Anchor
The most popular reviews in /r/centrist:
The study in the article only studied 8 transgender college runners.
The study specifically says there is still a lack of data that proves or disproves the belief that transgendered athletes are advantaged. So I am not sure why you are eager to accept a side in this.
Read the book. It’s white supremacy with nicer shoes and darker skin.
I'll give you my hot take on this. I don't think being transgender is more valid than being transracial. I also don't believe either one of them makes you something other than what you are - a biological conclusion.
But hey, live your life as you see fit. Just don't lie about it. Don't go telling the NAACP that you were born African American. Don't go telling match.com that you're a woman. Tell those organizations your truth and let them respond.
Here's the unhappy reality. All of us were born with something that our minds perceive that our bodies do not or that the world will not accept. Learning to live with those things is a PERSONAL challenge. Including the reality that others may not accept your "truth". Does that give people the right to discriminate? Not on any public grounds. Privately you need to accept it. Can they stop you from renting a room or getting gas? No. But you can't expect them to like you, to use your pronouns, or do anything more than their legal obligation.
Rachel Dolezal's mistake? Lying about the truth. Coincidentally that was Elizabeth Warren's mistake too. Not that she claimed to have a Native American ancestor - she clearly does - but that she claimed to BE Native American, which she is not.
Well... as far as part of a tribe. She is actually a native American much like every other f'ing person born in the US.
Here's a link to the Amazon page for the book that formed my views on the matter: What You Can Change and What You Can't by Martin E.P. Seligman
He is one of the psychologists I referred to who tried to find a treatment for gender dysphoria and was unable to.
https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/6206/620204.html
I'm just basically spamming this today, aren't I... Sigh
https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095
I'm actually just tired of this conversation with people. Every single person has an opinion about race and God damn near no one has ever read about it.
So, aside from the rampant problems in your question. (your use of the word savage, and the (False Dilemma)[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/False_dilemma.html] you set up). it's a complicated issue. I think ultimately, you build a few small colonies in uninhabited part of the East Coast or Canada and start building a trading relationship between your European nation and the Native Americans.
You're going to get a lot of different opinions depending on your perspectives on non-engagement, there's an academic, anthropologist perspective that would say you try to influence as little as possible, but I don't think that's realistic.
If you assume you do start trading and building relationships with the Native Americans, than there's going to be an exchange of culture and ideas and technology such that you would likely have a modern society based more in the Native American culture, rather than British culture. (this is also assuming the Native American's wouldn't have done it themselves).
What I think is interesting is wondering if there's an inevitability to conflict. I think this is a similar ethical dilemma that's presented in the movie. (Hero)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film)] The question is, since Native Americans were actually a large group of disparate tribes, could they be as successful in the global economy without creating a unified nation, a United States of sorts. And if there is conflict among the Native Americans to try and unify, would the European Nations stand by and watch or engage in the power struggle themselves.
>All of the stupidity with none of the charisma
I'd actually argue he has greater charisma. Because a lot of the appeal right now for 'on the ground' republican supporters is partisan outrage, which DJT Jr. lives for... remember the title of his second-most recent book; 'Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us'.
It's not really charisma in terms of being a good orator, or good at connecting with people. But he embodies rage, and frankly, that seems to be the biggest motivator for the GOP currently. Granted, I could be wrong (which I would be pleasantly surprised to see a non-Trump individual get the GOP nomination).
Clinton's senior advisor wrote a book about it (Sid Blumenthal),
How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime (2006)
https://www.amazon.com/How-Bush-Rules-Chronicles-Radical/dp/069112888X
Which is doubly ironic considering who is on the Bulwark's masthead, and their relations with the Bush admin.
https://www.schwab.com/ira/roth-ira/withdrawal-rules
From the article:
"If you take a distribution of Roth IRA earnings before you reach age 59½ and before the account is five years old, the earnings may be subject to taxes and penalties. You may be able to avoid penalties (but not taxes) in the following situations:"
Very few studies have been conducted around the clinical effectiveness of cloth masks, and most available studies are observational or in vitro. Emerging infectious diseases are not constrained within geographical borders, so it is important for global disease control that use of cloth masks be underpinned by evidence. -From the same study.
Conclusion: Although cloth masks are commonly used in low/middle income countries, there is minimal policy acknowledgment of the need for cloth masks, and a lack of evidence on their efficacy and use. Cloth masks are generally not mentioned in any policies on the use of PPE during an influenza pandemic.
The CDC says "cloth masks MAY reduce" implies that either no studies were conducted or the evidence is very minimal.
It's just like saying "you may survive jumping from a plane without a parachute", like Dr. Birx, I don't trust anything coming from the CDC.
>No need to make everything so black and white.
I'm just calling you (and the CDC) on the bullshit, respectfully. Don't make claims that unbiased studies can easily disprove and then get all mad of "why did you have to go prove me wrong in front of my friends"...
Get better facts.
> noun
> The act of expropriating, or discarding appropriation or declining to hold as one's own; the surrender of a claim to exclusive property.
> The act of taking for public use upon providing compensation; condemnation by right of eminent domain. The act of dispossessing an owner, either wholly or to a limited extent, of his property or proprietary rights.
Is it censorship or is a curation? Or are you saying there is no such thing as an inappropriate book for a grade school library? It isn't like we are talking about public libraries or even college libraries. We are talking grade school libraries.
Obviously there is content that is inappropriate for certain ages. And many people disagree on what is and isn't appropriate. However, most people would agree that there are inappropriate books. It just depends on the particular book.
Furthermore, school libraries exist to promote learning and supplement the school curriculum. Having smutty romance novels in a school library just takes away room for better books. For every book we insist on adding, you are preventing another book from being in the library.
Are you really saying that you would allow https://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Queen-Gods-Monsters/dp/B09QP2GYBM/ref=asc_df_B09QP2GYBM/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=564732386341&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16149669358394016665&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9006620&hvtargid=pla-1601731112608&psc=1 something like this for 4th graders?
Maybe not the type of Progressives that San Francisco has: Book: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Much exaggerated as a generalization, but applies well to S.F.
>in this case, the tech sector could be causing homelessness by attracting more homeless people to an area
I’m not sure what you mean by this… it doesn’t make sense.
While foreign exchange appreciation is often cited as the triggering mechanism for dutch disease because that’s how it was first identified, it can also be triggered by any cross sector competition for scarce resources during economic booms (i.e. labor, real estate, intellectual capital, commodity booms, etc.) in other words foreign exchange is not really necessary in the dutch disease phenomenon.
You might interested in the book, <em>How to Lie with Statistics</em>
I recommend George Orwell's book The Road to Wigan Pier. https://www.amazon.ca/Road-Wigan-Pier-George-Orwell/dp/0156767503
It's a great book written while Orwell still considered himself a communist and admirer of Marx.
He was becoming disillusioned with the moment however as he observed that his peers seemed more interested in hating the rich than helping the poor.
The book is an excellent snap shot of the British working class in the 1920's.
I’m not going to debate with someone who sounds like they just got their marching orders from AM radio. The irrefutable fact is that Southern whites switched their voting allegiances in national elections from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party starting in the mid- to late-1960s. Buy this book (peer-reviewed research) and learn all about it. They lay the data out. https://www.amazon.com/Issue-Evolution-Transformation-American-Politics/dp/069102331X
But since you’re a fan of the guy who “loves the poorly educated,” I doubt you will even bother wanting to read it, and if you do, you won’t be able to comprehend it.
I disagree.
No parties is the vision. The fact that you don't think that is good enough is part of the problem with parties. They've got us to believe its impossible to have a country without parties.
For the first 8 years of the country we had no political parties. Parties also collapsed during the Era of Good Feelings.
I suggest you read "The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States"
>This work traces the historical processes in thought by which American political leaders slowly edged away from their complete philosophical rejection of a party and hesitantly began to embrace a party system. In the author's words, "The emergence of legitimate party opposition and of a theory of politics that accepted it was something new in the history of the world; it required a bold new act of understanding on the part of its contemporaries and it still requires study on our part." Professor Hofstadter's analysis of the idea of party and the development of legitimate opposition offers fresh insights into the political crisis of 1797-1801, on the thought of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Martin Van Buren, and other leading figures, and on the beginnings of modern democratic politics.
So people not having backgrounds in climate control) telling Congress climate isn't bad, the counter is to get people like Oren Cass, (who doesnt have background in climate control) to tell Congress that it's bad.
That's the same problem, painted a different color.
For the severity claim, I'll post a more updated weather.com article that states the sea levels have risen only.. 1.3 inches over a century. That's a fingers width over 100 years. https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2020-01-02-daily-weather-reveals-global-fingerprint-climate-change
I understand ice loss, but is ice not being frozen in it's spot?
The evidence of fuel mining vs lithium mining to build rechargable cars.
One sucks resources out of the earth while polluting the immediate atmosphere and water while one carves resources out of the earth while polluting the immediate atmosphere and water.
Humans are leeches on the planet, and we wouldn't be able to erase our carbon footprint, at least, not in the next few centuries. The easiest thing you can do is to increase regulations on countries that actually need pollution control (India) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-50298972
> ...Raff breaks off to explain the difference between sex and gender, and claims that there are “no neat divisions between physically or genetically ‘male’ or ‘female’ individuals.” In discussing possible evidence of the remains of female hunters at a site in Peru dating to 9,000 years ago, Raff claims that we have no idea whether the biological female in question had considered herself female, or whether she would have seen herself as belonging to some other category entirely, since Indigenous cultures have diverse concepts of gender, unlike the “duality imposed by Christian colonizers.” In writing Origin, Raff seems to have been eager to pay homage to every current progressive orthodoxy.
>I think we spend way too much money on the military and would like to see it scaled back.
I would too I favor the light footprint model that Obama quietly set up. Drones and special forces and training other militaries to fight extremists wherever they pop up instead of trying to throw tanks and carriers at it like Bush did.
Vice News did a look at how complicated that can get a while ago.
​
>I can't find any politician that represents me. Didn't vote for Trump either time.
I voted for Gary Johnson both times because my vote doesn't matter in CA. I did campaign for Elizabeth Warren the last time. She probably comes closest to me of the democrats. Somewhere between Bernie and the corporate dems.
Unfortunately voters have a disdain of nuanced goldilocks type candidates I think.
I was looking at the Engrossed in House and Placed on Calendar Senate versions. Neither contains the ‘scorekeeping’ section at all.
I only decided to dig in personally when I saw conservative subreddits posting a tweet from Joseph Hickman.
My earlier link was down the tweet chain from his.
I would like to recommend to those interested that they read The Color of Law. I read it a few months ago and it really opened my eyes to what people mean when they say 'systemic racism.' I thought I knew a fair amount about history, but boy was I wrong. It draws some very strong and disturbing links between systems set up after the Civil War and World War II and how racism in housing and education continue today.
By "stuff like this" do you mean "not understanding sarcasm"? Maybe https://www.amazon.com/Irony-Outrage-Polarized-Landscape-Laughter/dp/0190913088 has a better thesis than many think.
I call things woke when they're woke. The things you are saying are woke.
"Sounds like you need to read a bit of science." Do you mean "do the work(TM)?
"Strawman. I never made that claim. If you don't have any actual arguments, just admit it instead of typing this petty nonsense."
Yes, but Kendi and NHJ did. And you sound an awful lot like they do.
And is this your scientific source? https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X
This is exactly right. Ben Bradlee wrote a book about it. It's about a poor county in PA that used to be deeply blue and then, all of a sudden, wend bright red.
https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Pennsylvania-Elected-Changed-America/dp/0316515736
Here are the two books listed as "obscene."
A Court of Mist, is a 650 page novel with 35,000 five-star reviews on Amazon. You gotta try really hard to find the naughty bits in 650 pages of big words. I find it hard to imagine that anybody really up in arms about this book has read it.
With Gender Queer, at least there are pictures, so it's easier to find the naughty bits, but they're only drawings, not photos.
Reminds me of a joke:
An elderly woman calls the police to complain about her new neighbor sunbathing topless. The neighbor builds an 8 foot tall privacy fence, but the old lady calls the cops again, complaining that when she is in her upstairs bedroom, she can still see the woman. The woman builds a 15 foot privacy fence.
The old woman called the cops again and said, "When I go up in my attic and stand on a chair, I can see her obscene body!"
Maybe we're going too far out of our way to find naughty bits to ban.
In reality, the board is just a few policy nerds of a niche subject. Here is the book the head of the board wrote.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Lose-Information-War-Conflict/dp/1838607684
They were going to talk about fake news like dry, boring nerds. They never had any power to remove information.
So yeah, I'm not too worried about Republicans getting their hands on a board filled with a few PhD. It's not like 2024 president Trump can focus long enough to read their reports.
> if you prevent people from interacting you do limit the spread.
That depends entirely on your model for transmissibility. An infected has literally billions of viruses, 99% of which are non-viable, emanating from the infected. How many viruses does a victim need to inhale in order to catch covid? 1? 1000? 1,000,000? If the latter, then maybe limiting interaction would do something. If the first two, no.
I read this book over the pandemic: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Influenza-Deadliest-Pandemic-History/dp/0143036491
Pretty interesting stuff. Then as now, people wore guaze masks everywhere and with great fervor. Then as now, science has shown that was basically useless. Then as now, there were quarantines everywhere. Then as now, they were useless. There were a couple of cases where isolated mountain towns in colorado shut off rail service and shot at anyone approaching with mail, who were spared. Everyone else, the measures did basically nothing.
Two things here…very “specific formulas” should warrant increased planning and preparedness, as anyone with a special diet would know.
Second, this is available right now on this top secret store called Amazon. Closest formulation to breast milk!
What is she fighting for?
Give this book a try. Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present
You can watch that documentary on Amazon.
Doesn’t sound particularly insightful, but it’s there for you to watch if you want.
So far the Amazon reviews it pretty favorably.
Did you read the Wikipedia page? I guess you didn’t. Here is a guns and ammo issue that uses the term
I really hate your attitude of “I don’t think it exists so it doesn’t exist.” The logic you used to try and support this claim ie, unsurprisingly, very bad too. Just because different people have different definitions for a term, doesn’t mean that term doesn’t exist. There are plenty of things that have subjective definitions but are definitely present in reality. Hell even the term centrist is subjective since it depends on outside social, political, personal, and ideological influences to define itself.
On a side note, I think it’s hilarious that I have been able to provide examples every time, and every time you have to change the topic in order to keep pushing your arguments. First it was “assault weapons don’t exist” then it was “manufactures never market assault weapons to citizens” and now it’s “there is no thing as assault weapons because the term is subjective.” I’m not sure if you’re aware of this behavior but this is exactly what I meant in my last reply. Just admit that you made a mistake instead of trying to force this point to work. You keep moving the goalpost and it’s really fucking obnoxious.
I read. Perhaps too much.
One book I'm reading is pretty fascinating https://www.amazon.com/Great-Influenza-Deadliest-Pandemic-History/dp/0143036491
Dealing with the influenza of 1917. Pretty interesting stuff throughout.
I know that no one thinks history is a useful subject anymore and we basically no longer teach it in the schools because STEM is the only thing that matters. But I recently read a very relevant book:
https://www.amazon.com/Ten-Cent-Plague-Comic-Book-Changed-America/dp/0312428235
The takeaway is: moral panics happen in America periodically, and they usually happen over pretty stupid stuff.
In the ~10 years following WWII, there was a massive moral panic over what children were reading in comic books that inspired censorship, bannings, burnings, hearings and anxiety over how kids were getting all messed up because of these things.
And yes, ambitious politicians often hitch their wagons to these causes to enhance their profiles. The relevant one during this time was Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver, who ran for president twice but ended up losing his primary battles to Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy.
Now it seems absurd to look back and think that so many Americans had such a freakout over comic books. Now those same characters that parents fell the need to have bonfires of, are our biggest cultural phenomena and an industry worth dozens of billions. The idea that you'd worry about them corrupting childrens' minds today is ridiculous.
Same with this crap about "don't say gay" and "CRT." It's absurd moral panic and in 10 or 15 years people are going to look back and laugh at us.
Well, are there Pelosi stickers?
If there are some I'd possibly be willing to put them up as well....
EDIT: I had to go look....and there ARE!
It is not all based on browsing history, and Google to some extent hand-curates general search results that show up for everyone. I sometimes do google searches in anonymized firefox qubes with no way to attach a search history to, and it still has the same general bias. I've tried searching for specific right leaning articles on Google, complete with direct quotes, on different browsers, VPN or no VPN, and still don't find what I'm looking for, while DuckDuckGo and Bing will bring it up as the first or second result.
I strongly recommend using Brave's search engine. It's the least censored among the search engine options.
But, yeah, Google is terrible these days even for non-political stuff. If you're trying to shop for a specific product or find product reviews, it's all just the same Amazon and Walmart links with some crap Pinterest link thrown in there that you can't even view if you don't have a Pinterest account. Fuck Google.
No but books like this one are, which spew the same ideas.
"I am always working to understand who I am. What does it mean for me to be a light biracial Black cis female? Action takes the form of being aware and noticing injustice and checking stereotypes. It’s using my lens of anti-racism, figuring out what it is I’m seeing, and taking action.
Remaining silent is not okay. It is not an option. Black folx, Brown folx, Indigenous folx, and Folx of the Global Majority are being harmed, oppressed, and killed every day. If you are white, light (like me), or a non-Black Person of the Global Majority, use your privilege and your proximity (or closeness) to the center of the dominant culture box to fracture the very foundation of our racist society. If you keep doing this and continue to put more cracks and dents into the structure, you’ll shake it all up so it can crumble."
It might be in reference to popular and critically acclaimed LGBTQ+ graphic novels like Gender Queer: A Memoir that have been stocked at public school libraries. There's explicit scenes in the book, and just from the Amazon sample you can see one sibling recommending another to taste their own "vagina slime."
If you have Android you should be able to install APKs from unofficial sources without root (you can at least with Samsung devices, probably most or all at this point if you look in your security settings if it doesn't work natively).
TikTok APK mirror (for Android users) that should still work when it gets pulled from the Play Store:
https://apkpure.com/tiktok/com.ss.android.ugc.trill
WeChat:
Yang's interesting because his policy has broad appeal from both progressive and conservative ideologies.
This podcast called "Moving Forward - The Conservative Case for Yang" brings up some very interesting points, it's a discussion between a progressive host and conservative host on why his policies appeal to both of them.
https://anchor.fm/movingforward/episodes/0-Prequel---The-Conservative-Case-for-Andrew-Yang-e3uedh
I think that passing a law regulating the banning of anyone from private websites would be a direct violation of free speech and would require re-writing the first amendment. Its just directly unconstitutional. If you wanted to address this issue without violating the constitution you could try to foster more competition in hopes that people will decide to move to websites that don't ban public officials, but that seems like a difficult task because its hard to imagine how you could 'break up' a website like twitter.
We have multiple options for public conversation, A) Facebook and Instagram (same company), B) Twitter, C) YouTube, D) TikTok main ones currently. Reddit is another big one although it functions differently as its harder to follow specific individuals.
Then there are a plethora of smaller websites mostly designed for conservative audiences, Gab.com, Parler.com, Clubhouse, Rumble, Locals, etc which anyone is free to use at any time, its just that people aren't moving there for whatever reason. I opened up a Gab account a while ago and under any post that mentions a black person there are hundreds of comments with the word 'n*gger" and under any post about a gay person there are hundreds of comments with the word "f*ggot". This is because Gab has a commitment to 100% no censorship. People have that option to have no censorship, and they don't like it, they prefer Twitter with its rules and terms of service and content moderation. Maybe there will be other options in the future with a better mix of content moderation but right now people have moved with their feet to twitter and facebook.
So there's been a lot of research on this. A while back a book was written on it: https://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594037310
Basically, a lot of the problem with birthrate is cultural and no government policy can change that.
However, some European countries have had sucess stabilizing their birthrates by making it as economically comfortable as possible to have and raise children. Paying people tonhave children doesn't work, but lots of vhildcare, health care, and education supports do work.
The other solution is immigration.
I am pretty much the exact same except on the other side of the country.
The problem is that the alternative to the local Democrat is currently Trump sycophants aside from a very few exceptions of the "never-Trump" Republicans.
Aside from getting into politics and changing either party, just keep spreading the word.
Here is an interesting podcast I listened to day that I think you might like which talks about problems on both sides of the aisle.
https://www.memrise.com/blog/what-if-youre-gender-fluid-but-your-language-isnt
>Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish, and many other languages don’t categorize any nouns as feminine or masculine and use the same word for he or she in regards to humans.
>In spoken Mandarin, there is also no distinction between the “she” or “he”. However, written Mandarin does and “she” is written 她, whereas “he” is written 他 even though they’re both pronounced “tā”
That took me ten seconds to find.
Also, while women are referred to as "she/her" in German, girls are grammatically called "it." So there's a lot more precedent than you think, and it's the English language that needs to catch up.
There are people advocating another, far more violent coup attempt on there right now. It's not solely because Trump moved there. He still has no verified account there at this point in time anyway.
I also mentioned Victoarian farm in my original reply to Armchair, So these internet Ad hominem tactics to trying to win this are showing through.
Gab already offers something like this. The Dissenter Browser lets people add comments to any website. Gab Trends lets people comment on submitted news articles. The tech is already out there.
You are on Reddit, you have no privacy, what the duck? How did you not know this? Why are you surprised that no one would look at your profile? It's a bloody compliment that someone would take the time and read your past posts. If you were so into you're privacy you would post in https://disqus.com/ where you can hide your posts.
No, you're right I still don't get your post. :/
Another book you should add to your list: <em>Coming Apart</em>, by Charles Murray.
Here's a WSJ article where he explains the thesis of the book.
I studied human evolution in college. Sex is the one and only pathway to the future and our genes know it, so they pull our emotional strings with all their might. The question is what kind of future do we want? One built by and for our genes? Or one built by and for human beings? If we indulge in sex simply because it feels good, like any other past-time, then we are unwittingly constructing the gene's future. And the make no mistake, the genes don't care about us. They'll happily condemn us to torture and misery if it serves their interests.
Are you going to answer my questions? I meant them sincerely.
Good article. In addition to what is discussed in it, "woke culture" is high supportive of multiculturalism, which in its most extreme incarnation morphs into open borders.
Might not be a big deal for the U.S. but is very much so for France and other European countries with their longer histories and much more distinct cultures. Relevant book: The Strange Death of Europe
Great video by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt on the moral values of conservatives vs liberals. Kind of old now but VERY important in understanding why the left and the right find it so hard to get along or convince the other side using logic.
In short, liberals are much higher on moral values such as openness to experience and caring about harm and fairness. Conservatives also care about harm and fairness but also care a lot about authority, tradition, and purity. Fairness for liberals generally manifests itself through equality(fairness of outcomes) while for conservatives, it’s more about proportionality (receiving proportional to inputs)
Anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the “meta” of Conservative and Liberal psychology will really benefit from watching this. For a deeper understanding, I would highly recommend reading The Righteous Mind also by Jonathan Haidt which delves much deeper into political and religious psychology.
I’m reading a book by Thomas Sowell about the assumptions which underlie different political ideologies. So far it’s enlightening and seems relevant to your apparent search for truth.
A Conflict of Visions:... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465002056?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
Here's an excellent collection of hard policy data: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated-ebook/dp/B01M8IWJT2
You agreeing with the above poster seems like it contradicts your earlier point though -- I'm betting that evidence of systemic policy-based segregation (such as redlining, excluding black people from the GI bill, excluding black people from New Deal jobs, excluding black people from FHA-backed mortgages in neighborhoods close to jobs, etc) might not be enough for you, because some individuals were able to overcome that. But then "lived experience" also isn't enough for you because that's anecdotal? What else is there?
Read this OP: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated-ebook/dp/B01M8IWJT2
If you can't afford it because of your poverty conditions due to your upbringing, I'll buy you a copy, just DM me.
On the one hand,
> Described by The Economist as a "monumental study of ethno-demographic change", Whiteshift covers politics in both Europe and North America and looks into the political views of the populist right. Kaufmann argues that the rise of Donald Trump in America and the populist right in Europe is a reaction to sweeping demographic change rather than to "economic anxiety".
On the other,
>The New Yorker wrote that Kaufmann and Whiteshift were defending white identity politics.
[Wiki for <em>Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of White majorities</em>]
>This is the century of whiteshift. As Western societies are becoming increasingly mixed-race, demographic change is transforming politics. Over half of American babies are non-white, and by the end of the century, minorities and those of mixed race are projected to form the majority in the UK and other countries. The early stages of this transformation have led to a populist disruption, tearing a path through the usual politics of left and right. Ethnic transformation will continue, but conservative whites are unlikely to exit quietly; their feelings of alienation are already redrawing political lines and convulsing societies across the West.
[Amazon on <em>Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of White majorities</em>.]
To be fair, I don't disagree with Kaufmann's analysis in the above italicized/bolded text, but I honestly don't know if he's defending white identity politics or simply trying to understand it.
Excerpt from the article and may the 4th be with you:
For a young immigrant boy who knew nothing about politics or history, Star Wars had a universal appeal that transcended language, nationality, time, and other superficial social barriers. And I was not the only one. In his delightful and perceptive book <em>The World According to Star Wars</em>, legal scholar Cass Sunstein recounts a story about how a meeting with high-ranking Taiwanese officials on the subjects of human rights, the world economy, and its complex relationship with mainland China turned into a conversation about Star Wars. Similar excitement over Star Wars and unlikely fan bases were also reported in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Nigeria, Egypt, Israel, India, and Japan. What is it about Star Wars that speaks so strongly to the human psyche?
Here's an excellent book on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631492853
It covers a history of mostly Federal policies that were explicitly racist, like the red-lining that led to the segregated cities of today's America. It goes up until 2008, where policies like loan under-writing were still racist in flagrant violation of the Equal Rights Act.
It should be required reading for every American IMO
No that's not accurate actually. Critical Race Theory is the 'official' name of a particular ideology. You can buy academic books called Introduction to Critical Race Theory etc.
Here's an example: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Race-Theory-Writings-Movement/dp/1565842715
I'd recommend you take this moment to consider how you came to believe this misinformation and whether the sources you go to for information on these matters are as reliable as you originally thought
Interesting on the mark, eh!
Here, in the 90s I was a grad student and I took a class in a MBA program on leadership. One of our books was this, for example. A fellow student had asked the Professor why we weren't reading Trump's, "the art of the deal" book in his class. I don't recall how exactly it went down, but I remember the student protested and the Prof had a hard time keeping a straight face, lol.
> We know racism is real and people don't like it. But we haven't found any consistent effect from it. If systemic racism is real it's a very small thing and very hard to even measure.
I’d suggest you broaden your sources. Perhaps start with 26 simple charts to show friends and family who aren't convinced racism is still a problem in America
then follow up with Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression
Read “Worst Cases”.
You’re over-indexing on how much politicians can control any calamity, never mind a pandemic. They always over promise and underdeliver.
https://www.amazon.com/Worst-Cases-Catastrophe-Popular-Imagination/dp/0226108597/ref=nodl_
You'd be interested in Jonathon Haid's book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, which attempts to answer your question in a psychological context
There was a proposal/book about this some years back called the Fair Tax by Neil Boortz and Congressman John Linder:
https://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496
I liked the idea at the time and still think it's a good one but it never got any real traction. Basically it's a consumption tax.
Hey, you really seem like you'd enjoy learning more about the civil war. A lot of your points are correct, but some are kind of washed through history. It's complicated, but boils down to slavery, and sometimes it's hard to want to dive into the nuance when the ownership of other humans is kind of an elephant in the room. Many of the generals certainly were west point grads and initially in the US Army. To resign ones commission and take up arms against their former country is at the very least leading an insurrection. Sometimes people quibble about "traitor" because they didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to secede from it. The US never acknowledged the confederacy entirely as another country, so to the US government, the confederacy was traitors, taking up arms against their country. Anyway, like I said it's complicated, but there are some REALLY well written books on the civil war.
Start here that's actually the end of the civil war, but it's just a fantastic book. It gives a lot of perspective into exactly what you're talking about. The north was extremely divided and many abhorred the idea of dying for the freedom of blacks. They were fighting to preserve the union. That doesn't mean the south wasn't fighting to maintain the institution of slavery. It's complicated. If you like the stillness at Appomattox, then rewind and take on the whole trilogy.
This covers the same era basically, the last year of the civil war, which includes the reelection of Lincoln. He was not really well liked but eked out the win. This one dives a bit more into the politics of Lincolns second election and the US politics in the north at the time. It's fascinating.
If you’re honestly interested I suggest reading this. It’s free and no the Russians didn’t rig any voting machines, I think that’s what rigging usually implies. Russia really had nothing to do with the casting or counting of votes but this report is quite long and explains what they were able to accomplish, most notably email leaks through roger stone and bot farms as well as a trump tower meeting with Russians explicitly trading dirt on the Clintons. Ever wonder why so many of Trump campaign people ended up in prison? It’s all from this report.
https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Findings-Special-Investigation/dp/B07NMVF5SQ/ref=nodl_
You are absolutely right, and there's an even deeper issue underlying that - the idea that we should only help people that "deserve" help.
It's a fairly modern idea, and it's so backwards. Yascha Mounk talks about the history of this idea and how much damage this has caused in his excellent book, "The Age of Responsibility: Luck, Choice, and the Welfare State"
Try amazon smile to donate to a charity of your choice automatically at no cost to you!
https://smile.amazon.com/Identity-Crisis-Presidential-Campaign-Meaning/dp/0691196435/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=identity+crisis&qid=1602911239&sr=8-1
^^^I'm ^^^a ^^^bot ^^^and ^^^this ^^^action ^^^was ^^^performed ^^^automatically.
This book is a short read and isn't incredibly profound, but it made more of an impact on me than any other. Solidified my commitment to be honest at all times.
You asked for "light reading material" and I didn't have any to hand. I figured it was simply a "are you telling the truth?" question, so I ignored it. If you are interested, take a look at How Pope Francis Is Reclaiming the Meaning of ‘Pro-Life’
>The term did have religious foundations, however. Catholics for at least a generation had been talking about “right to life,” and occasionally “pro-life,” in ways that were not so different from the language Francis’s encyclical — meaning a respect for everything and everyone living, including and especially the poor.
Or, you can read Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing which talks about it from the perspective of human rights, not a religious direction. Both of those were usages before the anti-abortion movement co-opted the term.
Again, I have not problem with the dictionary definition of pro-life. Have you looked at the dictionary definition of anti-abortion? My problem isn't confusion or definition, it's that there is a more correct term, anti-abortion, and there's no reason not to use it.
I personally wish we could use pro-life the way the OP and the Pope are suggesting we use it. That'd be such a nice change, using the term for something positive that we can all agree upon, rather than it being used to as a cudgel to attack people with other beliefs; I mean, if you're not pro-life, you are against life, right?
> The point of protesting is to get public support
That's one objective you can have for a protest, but it's definitely not the only one. I think this is a common misconception. I recommend the book "This is an Uprising".
​
> And to be clear I honestly don’t care “who started it”
If police started it, you don't see that as a problem?
​
> the rioters (to distinguish them from protesters) shouldn’t be throwing fireworks, bombs, Molotov Cocktails, bricks, or anything else at police.
I agree. I'm not a pacifist, and I'm not inherently opposed to property destruction, but I don't think it makes sense to adopt violence against a better armed and trained opponent.
Thinking this is a partisan issue is a mistake. It's an information age issue, and it's pervasive:
https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017