==I have to think its tiresome from their point of view to constantly be reminded that white people see them as other.==
It’s interesting how you read DEI and immediately think it only applies to black people. Have you actually asked a black person what they think about it? If so, what did they say? If not, maybe you should.
What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate? I’ve never heard of that type of one-issue voter.
> It’s interesting how you read DEI and immediately think it only applies to black people.
Right, nobody said it did. That's the predominant content in the USA though so it's what's at issue here. Even you talk about it as if it does.
> Have you actually asked a black person what they think about it? If so, what did they say?
"For [Justice Thomas], white benevolence denies black people the pride of achievement. By contrast, if one is black and overcomes the barriers of Jim Crow, one can be assured that the accomplishment is real. Thomas often invokes the example of his grandparents, who, despite segregation, managed to acquire property and support their family. Though they 'had to work twice as hard to get half as far,' they knew, however far they got, that the distance was theirs. When black people succeed in the shadow of white benefactors, that certainty is lost."
> If not, maybe you should.
Indeed.
> You asked why there was an eighth principle and that is because it was adopted by credit unions [1].
Right, but why? The other principles are things that define credit unions.
> What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate?
Laws that make it illegal to discriminate against people for "racial" reasons. We just want the laws to make it clear that all racism is racism, even anti-racism.
No I did not. I echoed OP's comments and tried to follow their reasoning.
=="For [Justice Thomas], white benevolence denies black people the pride of achievement.....=
How is this related to DEI?
"As CUNA board chair, Smith had appointed a Diversity and Inclusion Ad Hoc Working Group and tasked its members with looking at the issue. In February, he wrote that their findings and his 40 years in the credit union movement told him the time had come to “officially recognize diversity and inclusion as part of the credit union philosophy.”
==Right, but why? The other principles are things that define credit unions.==
It's not a secret. Credit Unions (and co-ops) also employ people, so it makes sens from that angle, as well.
“Credit unions were established to serve specific – typically underserved – communities, making a place for those who had none. And today, our mission continues to be to provide opportunity and access for all."
And the future community is one that will include more minorities. Almost all growth in the U.S. population is coming from Hispanics, blacks, Asians and other minorities. The Census Bureau forecasts that non-Hispanic whites will be a minority of those ages 18 to 28 by 2028, and a minority of the total U.S. population by 2045.
“If we want to be more relevant to the communities we’re trying to serve, then focusing on becoming more diverse in our workforces really does matter,” Hansing said.” [1]
Re-read your quote, those weren’t Justice Thomas’s words. They are the words of a New Yorker writer. It’s not his quote. Also, DEI is not only about black people. Affirmative Action is not the same as DEI.
== By that rule everything such as encouraging eating more vegetables should be in there.==
Credit Unions, the ones who wrote the principles, don’t have anything to do with eating vegetables. They believe DEI to be topical for their business. Have you run a Credit Union?
I like how you dismiss their opinion on their business practices, while embracing one person’s view of affirmative action as the definitive statement on DEI. It’s quite a stretch.
No, but I've been part of co-ops and other community run groups for decades.
> Credit Unions, the ones who wrote the principles, don’t have anything to do with eating vegetables
Right, and they also don't have anything to do with race quotas. Or religion quotas or climate change or justice for the Armenian genocide.
> They believe DEI to be topical for their business.
The employees are certainly free to feel that these are the main issues in the world and to direct their charity work towards them but the organization itself should remain focused on the reasons the co-op was founded.
> you dismiss their opinion on their business practices, while embracing one person’s view of affirmative action as the definitive statement on DEI
Right. I've been there in the business practices but I've never been a type-A black man trying to succeed against all odds in a racist nation.
> Re-read your quote, those weren’t Justice Thomas’s words.
I do think his actual quotes support the authors view but you're right.
> DEI is not only about black people. Affirmative Action is not the same as DEI.
Affirmative Action is a tactic, DEI is a framework that encompasses it and many other things.
== Right. I've been there in the business practices but I've never been a type-A black man trying to succeed against all odds in a racist nation. ==
This is exhausting. In your mind, one 75-year-old black man can speak for all of DEI, but actual Credit Union experts have no idea how to run Credit Unions. Meanwhile, the head of the CUs is a black man and also an expert in CUs. He succeeded against all odds in a racist nation, but you have completely de-valued his thoughts/experience because you dug in so deep.
== Right, and they also don't have anything to do with race quotas.==
Who mentioned quotas? This is the tactic you've shown over-and-over again in this discussion, continually throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. You move the conversation away from the actual topic to go down some rabbit hole.
The article specifically mentions black people.
" It’s a bit shocking that this is still an open question for the co-op movement, especially given that the national groups are just now starting to recognize the work done by African-Americans in co-ops throughout our country’s history."
"What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate? I’ve never heard of that type of one-issue voter."
I am a father to 2 white optimally straight (downvote me if you like but I would prefer my kids be straight, if they are not then I love them the same) boys. I find the school systems and corporate worlds constant focus on the rights of everyone except them tiresome and worrisome. I live in Florida so going to vote for Desantis. I don't like him at all but I respect his stance on this. I am going to vote for him based on this single issue.
You asked why there was an eighth principle and that is because it was adopted by credit unions [1]. It doesn’t only apply to black people.
So you haven’t actually asked a black person if they are offended by it. It is in fact you who are offended by it. Makes much more sense.
What exactly is DeSantis’s “stance on this”? I know he championed a bunch of laws on what teachers can do/say, and which books are acceptable to read (i.e. regulations). I’m a father to two white boys. The world seems to be treating them just fine. They don’t seem like victims, to me.
Of course its me that's offended by it, I don't think I was hiding it. With that said, I'm jewish, we've kind of had our own rough go of it. Good part of my family died in the holocaust and the Russian Pogroms. I had stones thrown at me as a child on 2 occasions because I was Jewish. In elementary school I had to sit outside in the open hallway rain or shine while the christian kids prayed (I'm not from America originally). I would never work for a company that singled Jews out beneficially and taught classes that said be polite to the Jews and don't discriminate against them. It means they are specifically saying I am different and that my coworkers are potentially anti-Semites. That's pretty awkward.
Desantis' stance is essentially telling teachers don't talk about Gay/Trans issues in the classroom and don't teach in such a way as to make children of a specific race feel bad or guilty for being of that race. You can argue it goes further than this and perhaps it does but that's my main takeaway and the reason for my vote. I'll still vote Biden for president though. I'm leaning towards voting Dem for federal positions and Republican on a state level.
My kids are also Jewish, from my wife’s side. It is interesting to hear the comments of people when they have no idea.
Voting for split representation is a perfectly reasonable approach. I personally think DeSantis is pro-power, not pro-freedom. His stunt with asylum-seeking migrants is a great example. Also the fact that Florida doesn’t have things like legal weed, legal sports betting, legal abortion, and more.
I for the most part agree with all your points on Desantis. Medical marijuana in Florida is a joke, I'm pro legalization. Not a fan of gambling personally but to each their own. On a personal level I think he's a Jerk. So with all that said as someone in my 40s that has only voted Democrat before, the fact that I am voting for Desantis shows how concerned I am with the social engineering going on in the country.
I think DeSantis is the one engaging in social engineering, you just happen to agree with his policies. He is simply leaning into the culture wars which leads us to continued division without any actual solutions for the very real problems in our states/country.
I haven’t seen any evidence that being “anti-woke” improves K-9 test scores, lowers infant fatality rates, reduces mass shootings, improves quality of life, increases earnings, or any other actual benefit to citizens. It’s a distraction meant to prey on your emotions and hide the lack of actual policies.
Maybe true, but I'm not looking for solutions to those things. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have solved them. California still has all the same issues. I specifically don't want to be treated as a racist in training by taking a million anti discrimination classes or be insulted by a class telling me to "sit in my shame". In addition I don't want schools to have the power to treat kids as different genders and not alert the parents. Nor do I want teachers to be able to promote transgenderism or homosexuality as a viable option for kids. If the child is gay or transgender on their own, so be it. School should not be the realm to promote it or suggest it.
> I specifically don't want to be treated as a racist in training by taking a million anti discrimination classes or be insulted by a class telling me to "sit in my shame".
it seems like this class your job had you take is a real source of trauma for you. While I think I know what someone would have meant by "sit in your shame" (they meant, if someone tells you something you said/did was offensive, just drop it, don't fight them on it), it's certainly not something you can expect white people who have never thought about any of this stuff to just nod their heads in agreement. it seems like the people doing the class are probably not well trained in how to do this kind of thing because if it leaves the students more hostile than when you started, that is likely counterproductive. But bigger picture, that you had a bad diversity class at your job is not the main issue as far as racism is concerned, it's the ongoing institutional racism itself that has a much more harmful effect on the actual victims. Like, someone told you to "sit in your shame", they didn't kneel on your neck until you were dead because they felt like it, or send you to prison for 12 years for filling out a form incorrectly. There's some proportionality to be considered here.
> In addition I don't want schools to have the power to treat kids as different genders and not alert the parents.
FOX News propaganda. this is not a thing
> Nor do I want teachers to be able to promote transgenderism or homosexuality as a viable option for kids.
transgenderism and homosexuality are not "options". you can't "decide" to be trans or gay. you are born that way. Surely, as someone who claims they have been a "liberal Democrat", you accept.... gay rights at least?
> School should not be the realm to promote it or suggest it.
FOX News propaganda. not a thing. Saying that "gay people exist" is not equivalent to "promoting it". If OTOH you think kids should be raised in complete ignorance that some people marry others of the same gender or wish to live their lives as other genders, then again, the "liberal Democrat" label really doesn't apply, that's a homophobic and bigoted opinion.
I'm pro gay marriage and want trans people to be able to transition if they want. What I have no interest in is anyone presenting either as an acceptable option to my kids. If they end up gay, so be it ill love them the same but no one should be putting those thoughts in their heads.
I'm white but also a jew, as I said in another comment, I have had stones thrown at me as a kid for it. I would never want my coworkers to have to take classes on anti semitism because it assumes they are potential anti semites. That is insulting. I have had calm informative conversations over beers with open anti semites, I'm fine. It did not bother me in the least because I'm not fragile. People are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong.
Every one is entitled to live their lives and raise their kids as they see fit barring some rigidly defined abuse. Parents not some teacher making 35k a year are the ultimate decider in kids lives; to push for anything else is insane and gives government and random people with teaching certificates an unholy amount of power. You seem to want to police people's minds and demand that every one adhere to your world view or they are terrible people. Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone. We don't care about movements or reparations for things we had nothing to do with. Raise your kids how you want and everyone else can do the same.
This is not Iran, we don't need a morality police. America is and will continue to be the greatest country on earth because of individual freedom and our at least historical ability to agree to disagree with each other.
No examples from Florida, the state being discussed. The two "articles" you did provide are sourced from the same author at the same publication "The National Desk" (owned by Sinclair Broadcasting). One the sources they use is The Epoch Times, which is not a reputable publication. Interesting source material for a self-proclaimed "Democratic party voter".
==What I have no interest in is anyone presenting either as an acceptable option to my kids.==
The alternatives are (1) pretending it doesn't exist or (2) presenting is as an unacceptable option. Do you prefer to pretend it doesn't exist?
==I would never want my coworkers to have to take classes on anti semitism because it assumes they are potential anti semites. ==
I don't follow. Everyone is a potential anti-Semite. If you aren't then the class shouldn't bother you. It's the same as the "shame" exercise. If you have no shame about your actions, why would it bother you?
==You seem to want to police people's minds and demand that every one adhere to your world view or they are terrible people.==
By banning books and outlawing what teachers can teach?
==This is not Iran, we don't need a morality police.==
And yet, we have Ron DeSantis, your guy, saving us from things that weren't being taught to kids in the first place. I couldn't think of a better example of morality police.
Why would I need examples in florida, the entire reason I stated I am voting for Desantis is to prevent there being florida examples. What does them being from the same source matter? Are you saying they are invalid? If your chosen media outlet does not cover certain news is it not news?
"I don't follow. Everyone is a potential anti-Semite. If you aren't then the class shouldn't bother you. It's the same as the "shame" exercise. If you have no shame about your actions, why would it bother you?"
Your argument is basically "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"
I assume you are a proponent of stop and frisk. Everyone is a potential criminal, if they have nothing to hide then they should have nothing to fear from getting searched right?
The fact that you would defend being treated like a potential racist or antisemite is strange to me. Whats next? Everyone is a potential pedophile so everyone's web traffic should be monitored? You are on a slippery slope to 1984 but you think the people from the book in control are the good guys.
Banning books? Are there certain books that Desantis has made illegal to possess in Florida? Or are you just spouting nonsense to make removing certain books from schools seem nefarious? Can I stock the local elementary school with penthouse magazines? If you are answering no, then you are banning books. Of course teachers should not be able to teach whatever they want, to argue otherwise is insane. Are you good with teachers teaching the holocaust never happened or the bell curve? There is a curriculum for a reason.
You are parroting talking points you see on social media without exploring the topics any further.
Funny thing is I bet we follow a lot of the same left leaning people on twitter but the things they say have driven me to the right while you agree with them. I think most of the right wing social and traditional media personalities are idiots. My shift to the right has almost entirely been driven by the content of liberal twitter accounts and DEI classes I have had to take.
I have openly stated I think Desantis is a jerk and I disagree with many of his stances. On the points that are driving my vote I agree with him.
1. Not teaching homosexuality and transexuality as an option to school kids. This is not a topic for school.
2. Not treating white people as racist by default.
3. Not discriminating in anything by race
4. Not punishing people for the content of their minds
5. Parents are the ultimate deciders for their kids, the school has no say on what is best for them if it conflicts with the Parents wishes
This thread has gone on far to long, so calling the game. Lets agree, I'll vote however I want and treat everyone as if they are good by default and you vote for whoever you want and treat everyone as if they are suspected racists and anti-semites by default.
All the best to you and yours. I wish you a long and happy life.
== You are parroting talking points you see on social media without exploring the topics any further. Funny thing is I bet we follow a lot of the same left leaning people on twitter but the things they say have driven me to the right while you agree with them. I think most of the right wing social and traditional media personalities are idiots. My shift to the right has almost entirely been driven by the content of liberal twitter accounts and DEI classes I have had to take.==
I’m not on Twitter or any social media (besides HN). Must be nice to know everything about everyone without even having to bother with asking.
You gave me a whole profile of myself based on your mistaken beliefs. Then try to claim I am the one who judges people. Maybe time to take a break from social media.
We weren't talking about California, the topic was Florida. That said, California's Governor is trying to solve those issues through policy, Florida's Governor is focused on being "anti-woke". Meanwhile, California has a Maternal Mortality Rate of 4/100k, Florida's is 22/100k [1]. One out of every 4,500 Florida women forced to carry a baby to term will die.
Interestingly, the 7 best states for K-12 education are all pretty "woke" [2]. Florida is ranked 33rd in math scores and 22nd in reading, maybe we should be looking to them for best practices rather than focusing one something completely unrelated to actually educating youth.
Edit to add: My state Illinois has much higher standard for students than Florida, which basically grades proficiency on a curve. Lowering the standards rather than the hard work of actually improving education.
"In Illinois, a student needs to earn a level of 4 or 5 to be considered proficient. In comparison, the rigor of Florida’s standards ranks 39th and 42nd, respectively, and a student only needs to earn a level 3 on the state assessment to be considered proficient." [3]
==treated as a racist in training by taking a million anti discrimination classes or be insulted by a class telling me to "sit in my shame".==
I've never had that feeling in a DEI class. I wonder why that is your reaction. It may be worth exploring why discussing equity makes you feel like you are losing something. Maybe you had a bad instructor?
==If the child is gay or transgender on their own, so be it. School should not be the realm to promote it or suggest it.==
This is the sex-ed argument all over again. If we don't mention underage sex, it doesn't exist. Talking about gay people doesn't turn someone gay. Banning books and regulating what teachers can teach/say doesn't seem like a solution to the problem you mentioned. It seems the same as mandating abstinence.
Lol, I didn't have the feeling that it wanted me to "sit in my shame", it legitimately said it on a slide.
Again all valid points. My focus though is very self centered as a parent, it's on my kids and no one else.
My kids are A students and attend gifted classes, their schooling is fine. Regarding infant mortality, again you are probably right with the numbers but they are not my focus. All of these things were my focus for a very long time, don't forget I have been a hard core Dem for 20+ years. My concern now is my kids and what I want them exposed to at school. I have been pretty focused on doing the greater good politically for a long time. In regards to the current upcoming state elections I am going to be selfish and focus only on what is best for my family for the next 4 years.
Note: I am also very aware that my change in focus and world view is significantly linked to my high income and the benefits it provides me right now. I just am fine with it, and am putting my goals and wants for my family over everything else. I worked 50-60 hours a week for years to get here. I'm not opposed to being selfish for a bit.
==I didn't have the feeling that it wanted me to "sit in my shame", it legitimately said it on a slide.==
Did you feel shame? If I was told that, and didn't feel shame, not sure I would have dwelled on it so much.
You do you. We make a very high income as well, and my politics have gone in the exact opposite direction as yours over 20 years. Over those 20 years, higher-educated and higher-earning Americans have become far more likely to vote Dem. You are actually swimming against the tide. I watched the affluent area I grew up in (DuPage County) move from bedrock Regan Republican to Democrat over my lifetime.
When Republicans failed to create a replacement for ACA after campaigning on it for ~8 years and 4 elections (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016); I realized they weren't actually interested in governing. DiSantis is the embodiment of that "bluster-over-policy" approach.
== In regards to the current upcoming state elections I am going to be selfish and focus only on what is best for my family for the next 4 years.==
I hope it works out for your family and also the many other families in Florida.
No one has the right to tell me to sit in my shame. No one has the right to make someone else feel lesser for the benefit of a specially selected other. If someone is offended by something I say or a way I act then I am willing to discuss their issue with it. At no point in time will I feel shame or sacrifice my pride. Pride is what makes someone who they are. Take away pride and you are left with a shell of a person. Look at people with no confidence, life for them is empty and grey.
> This is the sex-ed argument all over again. If we don't mention underage sex, it doesn't exist. Talking about gay people doesn't turn someone gay.
Democrats nicknamed it the "don't say gay" bill but that isn't its name, its goal, or its outcome. It's about the age appropriateness of the introduction to the topic.
The issue, to the parents who campaigned for the bill and the politicians who passed it, is gender. Unlike homosexuality (LGB), talking about gender does turn people transgender - or rather has the school hook the child up with hormones and body modification without the parent's knowledge.
Just fyi, about the news renaming and reframing things before you hear about them, Florida republicans protected women's sex-based rights by making male-bodied people play sports on men's teams and the news called it "denying transgirls their human rights to play sports".
> [To WonderWonder] Did you feel shame? If I was told that, and didn't feel shame, not sure I would have dwelled on it so much.
WonderWonder is thinking of their children, and how they'll be told they're racist - and to sit in their shame - just because of their race. That's a pretty regressive outcome so I understand them wanting to avoid it.
> Unlike homosexuality (LGB), talking about gender does turn people transgender
categorically false
> or rather has the school hook the child up with hormones and body modification without the parent's knowledge.
source? schoolteachers can prescribe medication and perform surgery? Are these teachers also MDs ? That would be unusual ? not to mention extremely illegal for teachers and doctors to treat children without the consent of their legal guardians? teachers can't even give kids a tylenol.
> WonderWonder is thinking of their children, and how they'll be told they're racist
the word "racist" in modern use refers to actions that are racist, such as voting for Ron DeSantis. It doesn't matter if in your heart you're racist or not, if you do racist things, whether you have any idea or not that those things are racist, that's what it means to "be a racist".
Sadly, true. Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria as described in Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier. It's a social contagion.
Over 95% of transgender children, left to themselves, desist. Many realize they're gay/lesbian, the others are just fine too.
> schoolteachers can prescribe medication and perform surgery? [...] extremely illegal for teachers and doctors to treat children without the consent of their legal guardians?
Look at Mermaids and Keffals. People will send you hormones and breast binders even if they know you are underage and it is expressly against your parents' wishes. Teachers and counsellors often hook children up - LibsOfTikTok has videos of people admitting to this. Legal advocacy groups are telling teachers unions that they need to help keep this a secret from parents lest the child be forced to kill themselves.
> the word "racist" in modern use refers to actions that are racist
"In modern use" means "as we redefined it to win arguments".
> if you do racist things, whether you have any idea or not that those things are racist [...] such as voting for Ron DeSantis.
> People will send you hormones and breast binders even if they know you are underage and it is expressly against your parents' wishes.
sending hormones to children without medical professionals involved is illegal. do you know of teachers doing this? call the police. problem solved.
> Teachers and counsellors often hook children up
you're being very sloppy with your wording. "hook children up" means "giving drugs to children". not happening, if it is happening, call the police.
> LibsOfTikTok has videos of people admitting to this
then those people would be arrested
> Legal advocacy groups are telling teachers unions that they need to help keep this a secret from parents lest the child be forced to kill themselves.
you are confusing "giving drugs to kids" with the practice of teachers keeping confidential when a student verbally expresses to a teacher that they might want to identify of a different gender. Certainly, the latter point is still something that can make people upset, but that's all it is - the child says words to a teacher about how they feel emotionally about something, and the teacher /school is then given leeway to determine that they might not inform the parents if it is feared that the parents will retaliate towards the children. Be mad about that if you want but this is not "transitioning" anyone or "hooking up" anyone with drugs.
> "In modern use" means "as we redefined it to win arguments".
if you are "not a racist", but then you thought it was funny to go to a halloween party wearing blackface, you just did a racist thing. It doesnt matter what you thought in your mind. This is not controversial. if you showed up to a party like that, you practiced racism. nobody cares or need be concerned what you actually think in your mind. If a Nazi throws you in an oven, are you concerned if they are actually anti-Semitic or not?
> sending hormones to children without medical professionals involved is illegal. do you know of teachers doing this? call the police. problem solved.
No, I know of the person sending the hormones. They had the police called on them but they cried to the media and ended up getting the site with the proof shut down amid a total kerfuffle. There are a lot of people like this though and reporting them does nothing.
> then those people would be arrested
Sadly, no. Often not even fired. Teachers are bringing strippers to school to dance for the kids and when parents protest they're being attacked by the school boards. The media is haranguing parents for trying to even be involved, let alone when they point at the problems.
They don't touch the drugs themselves, they simply get the kid onto the Mermaids chat or any of the others and find a groomer to help them.
> you are confusing "giving drugs to kids" with the practice of teachers keeping confidential when a student verbally expresses to a teacher that they might want to identify of a different gender
I wish. Not only do they present "gender affirming" surgery as an option for mood related problems but they don't even wait until a child says they want to identify, they often ask the kids if they want to and in some cases harass them because 'cis is boring'. And the school will definitely broker meetings with counsellors and doctors if they get a hit.
There's a case from my area where the school called the parents in after the child had many (around 10) counseling sessions and had seen a "gender surgeon" for a consultation. The parents were told by the shrink that their daughter was a son and they could recognize that or would have a suicide on their hands. The counselor delivered a suicide threat in the child's name, in front of the child. They already had the testosterone waiting (from the surgeon). When this went to court the school continued to file briefs in the case in concert with the law society and in the end the child was taken away and transitioned. Breasts cut off, poisoned with testosterone.
Had the parents known when the school, the teachers and the counsellor, convinced the child that they were trans they could have responded before she'd been fully groomed and sent off for "affirmative care".
> go to a halloween party wearing blackface
Do you recognize that womanface is just as stereotyping and harmful?
Absolutely, I agree, every black person that votes for DeSantis is 100% a racist. They are doing racist things. Or are we on board the "only white people can be racist" bus? Come on friend you are now policing peoples minds. You have labeled ~50% of the countries population as racist, a pretty serious accusation. This includes a good number of minorities. People have different priorities in life, not everything they do revolves around race. Essentially the people that cry racism the most are generally the racists feeling like they have to white knight for the poor oppressed minorities. The worst part is that they just cant see it, most openly racist people can at least acknowledge it. Black people can do just fine on their own they are not helpless children looking for a hero. And they can vote for whoever they want.
==Essentially the people that cry racism the most are generally the racists feeling like they have to white knight for the poor oppressed minorities. The worst part is that they just cant see it, most openly racist people can at least acknowledge it. Black people can do just fine on their own they are not helpless children looking for a hero.==
You are the only one who has made a claim about anyone being "helpless", but it's good to know that is immediately where your mind went. For someone who totally isn't racist, you seem to know exactly how racist people think.
Exactly, well said. I did not feel shame, I felt pretty irritated that I was being spoken to in that way and even more irritated at the thought that by the time my kids are getting their first job it could be way worse. They are essentially asking you to sacrifice your pride on the alter of being progressive.
Girls being forced to play sports against men is irrational. The most troubling aspect though is as you said, schools being able to decide that a student is of another gender and act for all intents like they are without informing the parent or getting their consent. Any actions performed on a student by a member of the school staff should only be with the express written permission of the parent.
Its my personal belief that a large percentage of the rise in transgenderism is because of kids being exposed to the concept via the media, pornography and school. If you keep the concept away from kids until they are older I am pretty sure the prevalence would fall dramatically.
I am not anti trans, I wish everyone a happy and satisfying life, I just have no interest in exposing my kids to the concept. While very low in number, the situation with schools actually allowing drag shows on campus shows how far from common sense we have strayed. Society is catering to it. Parents should have a 100% control over their kids and any decisions made on their behalf.
This opinion may be a little controversial but I'm also not a fan of thought police either where people are punished for having ideas or opinions outside of the norm. If someone does their job and treats everyone with respect at work, what they believe in their off time is their business as long as they are not a violent threat or breaking the law. I have on at least 3 occasions had calm rational conversations with open anti-semites (of the Jews rule the world and are responsible for its ills variety, not the kill them all variety) and even gone drinking with them. They knew I was a jew but we could still converse and be respectful. I would be fine working with them as long as they kept their attitudes outside of the office and again did not resort to violence or break the law. We cannot punish people for the contents of their mind.
==Democrats nicknamed it the "don't say gay" bill but that isn't its name, its goal, or its outcome.==
The actual bill language sure makes it seems like the goal, as it was written with ambiguous phrases like "age-appropriate" and "developmentally appropriate":
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." [1]
==It's about the age appropriateness of the introduction to the topic.==
Is it? I'm pretty sure it is grandstanding:
"one of the key reasons critics cited in saying the law was unnecessary was that teachers do not cover such subjects in early grades anyway." [2]
Lawyers disagree with you that it is only about "age appropriateness of the introduction to the topic":
"Workshops about the law that her school district’s legal team held over the summer caused confusion. Some staff said they were told teachers in kindergarten through third grade could not display pride flags or photos of their same-sex spouses." [2]
Are you sure your news didn't "rename and reframe" it?
==Florida republicans protected women's sex-based rights by making male-bodied people play sports on men's teams and the news called it "denying transgirls their human rights to play sports".==
Protecting one group's rights by denying another group's rights, similar to women and fetuses.
==rather has the school hook the child up with hormones and body modification without the parent's knowledge.==
I would love to hear more about all these cases. Can you share?
==WonderWonder is thinking of their children, and how they'll be told they're racist - and to sit in their shame - just because of their race.==
No, they were mentioning their own experience in a DEI class.
> Protecting one group's rights by denying another group's rights
How were the males involved denied their rights by the school having them play sports on the men's team? The females involved sure lose their rights when males are allowed into their sports and spaces.
> I would love to hear more about all these cases. Can you share?
Lookup "Keffals" and "Hoogland transgender".
> Some staff said they were told teachers in kindergarten through third grade could not display [...]
If you're using something as a lead-in to a forbidden topic for your class's age range, it would be forbidden. Generally teachers should be like counsellors and keep their private life private so it shouldn't be a problem.
> Are you sure your news didn't "rename and reframe" it?
Yes, because even if it was as "bad" as you say, teacher's don't have a right to tell the kids whatever they want. Teachers are already recommended to not tell kids what religion they are, and until recently, what their politics are. This is about the kids, the teachers have a job to do.
2 Canadian cases that have nothing to do with American laws.
== If you're using something as a lead-in to a forbidden topic for your class's age range, it would be forbidden.==
I don't think displaying a picture of your family is "a lead-in to a forbidden topic". Feels like quite a stretch. I remember everyone of my teachers growing up had picture on their desk or on the wall. My son's teacher has them today.
== the teachers have a job to do. ==
We should let them do the job for which they studied and were hired. They are the experts in teaching, we should let them teach. How do you feel when people who know nothing about your industry tell you how to do your job?
> Canadian cases that have nothing to do with American laws
Do a search or watch LibsOfTikTok to see what's happening in the USA.
> I don't think displaying a picture of your family is "a lead-in to a forbidden topic".
It is if you're hoping to be asked about it. Watch the LoTT videos. Some of those teachers say they're just waiting for their kids to ask about anything queer-adjacent.
> We should let them do the job for which they studied and were hired.
Many parents are/were teachers and have equivalent education. They agree that schools bypassing parental safeguarding rules is unacceptable.
> How do you feel when people who know nothing about your industry tell you how to do your job?
Lol, you've met my manager I take it? But I actually like it though because I'm a consultant at heart and explaining and guiding is more important than pedantically providing what I was asked for. If the teachers were willing to explain their PoV maybe the parents would support their teaching but secrets can't be accepted.
> They are the experts in teaching, we should let them teach.
They're experts in phalloplasties and puberty blockers which is why we should give them secret and unfettered access to children?
The same people who want trans-identified male athletes in female sports and washrooms are saying exactly the same thing about child surgical transition, "All the science supports this". It's pretty hard to take them seriously when they say William Thomas has no advantage against female swimmers since he changed his name to Lia or that chemo drugs produce a perfectly reversible delay in puberty.
Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear. Usually blind allegations of shilling, being a Russian stooge, being a sock puppet, and so on.
It was several times worse in the early days of the GWOT. Sikh's were getting killed for looking too Muslim. The stuff you see now where people want to include mandatory "Fact checks" in internet searches sort of paled to the crap we saw in the GWOT of Extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation, the Bush doctrine, destroying privacy laws in the name of patriotism, and so on.
> Not to put a fine point on it, but if you want to know what it was like back then, just say something like "I don't think we should finance the war in Ukraine. What is happening in Eastern Europe isn't our problem. Neutrality is the best policy" and see the rhetoric you'll hear
What's happening now is not remotely comparable to what the US did in response to 9/11 - if anything, it's the opposite (we are defending a country from being invaded for BS reasons vs invading another country for BS reasons)
At the beginning of the Iraq War, and for sometime thereafter, we were led to believe that Iraq was actively developing WMD. We weren't invading a country, but saving the world from imminent catastrophe at the hands of an unhinged and crazy dictator.
The proof included claims by dozens of different intelligence agencies, testimony from high level insiders in the Iraq government, surveillance photos of mobile biological weapons laboratories, definitive proof of purchase of Uranium for nuclear weapons purposes, under oath testimony, and of course endless propaganda:
To imagine all of this was fabricated or based on lies would make even the most enthusiastic conspiracy theorist look at you a bit funny. These events played a major role in shaping my worldview. And what we're going through today is even more extreme.
The one bright side of this is that if we can manage to avoid nuclear annihilation, I expect an even larger chunk of the population will join the jaded and cynical asshole family. It's not a pleasant worldview, but probably necessary for the survival of humanity in the age of mass media and mass weapons.
It was all based on lies and fabrication without any conspiracy. You are assuming it requires a conspiracy to pull it off, but why would it? These agencies, media and companies are all interested in the same thing which is US hegemony and profits not the truth, that automatically makes them do this without need for any conspiracy.
And why wouldn't they? What exactly has been the punishment for so called reliable media for spreading lies over and over again? If anything they are considered more reliable than ever. Which means people consuming it are not interested in truth either.
> You are assuming it requires a conspiracy to pull it off, but why would it?
Some might find it implausible the media and legislators were so credulous.
I mean, Saddam did allow UN weapons inspectors in before the war, and nobody could direct them to any WMD. Even at the time, it took some serious mental gymnastics to believe spy agencies had all this evidence of a huge programme, and yet couldn't direct weapons inspectors to anything.
Looking into the history of it, I don't think there was any sort of systemic conspiracy, but a loose collection of incentives.
If you wanted to sell papers, you needed to sell stories about AMERICA STOPPING TERRORISM! How did you get access to stories of marines busting down doors and shoving the foreign looking faces of murderous terrorists into the dirt? Well you had to be known as a news source who said the right things, had the right attitude.
At these news organisations there were some editors who were mostly there before 9/11 happened who decided that supporting America was the crap and were pushing stories from any reporter who had "sources" that gave evidence of what was going down. Readers LOVED reading stories about heroes who kicked the ass of murderous terrorists. It was a feedback loop, the more hawkish you were the more you succeeded, the more dovish you were the more irrelevant you were.
You can't seriously compare the assertions pushed through the media after 9/11 to the multitudes of sensory and social evidence that Ukraine was attacked.
I opposed GWOT / going into Iraq after 9/11, I have not forgotten the collective national mania.
But the comparison you're drawing to Ukraine is nonsense. If you're at the point where you believe all the reports, images and interviews detailing the millions of refugees crossing out of Ukraine have been faked... I'm not sure how to help you.
> If you're at the point where you believe all the reports, images and interviews detailing the millions of refugees crossing out of Ukraine have been faked...
I'm not comparing the worthiness of the two wars, I'm comparing the public excitement around the wars. I definitely am far more supportive of a defensive war than a pre-emptive war on general principle.
>Sikh's were getting killed for looking too Muslim.
I'm sorry but this sounds like an activist fever dream/urban legend. Are there actually two (or even one) known incidents like this from that time period?
I'm not defending the GWOT or opposing it here but that's an extreme characterization you're making; I was there and it doesn't match anything like my memory.
Here's a few murders: Balbir Singh Sodhi, Waqar Hasan, Adel Karas, Saed Mujtahid,
Jayantilal Patel, Surjit Singh Samra, Abdo Ali Ahmed, Abdullah
Mohammed Nimer, and Vasudev Patel.
Yes, but remember that the UN Security Council has a habit of fabricating evidence. Colin Powell was never trialled for showing “proof of WMD in Irak” and he died in 2021, with no penalty for his lies.
That happened with every recent war. It’s a habit of fabricating evidence, not mere clerical errors.
> Yes, but remember that the UN Security Council has a habit of fabricating evidence
The UN Security Council is not a singular entity, it's composed of permanent and rotating members, so it can hardly have "habits". A member can come with fabricated evidence, which can be accepted by other members for whatever reason, but that's not the UN Security Council fabricating evidence.
Crimea is almost exclusively ethnic Russian. This [1] is from the 2013 Wiki page on Ukrainian demographics. The annexation polls in Crimea from 2014 were not fabricated or coerced, and their results were subsequently validated by numerous Western polling agencies, including Gallup [2].
That's the entire question of this war (and the one entirely absent from Western media). After the Russian leaning government in Ukraine was overthrown in 2014, those heavily Russian territories declared their independence, starting a civil war. Numerous efforts were made to resolve this were made (the Minsk accords), but went nowhere. Russia blamed Ukraine, Ukraine blamed Russia.
So who gets to decide the fate of a people within an area? The people within that area, or the government with historic claims to the land of the area? That's not a rhetorical question because the traditional answer has always been the latter - generally changed only by war or collapse.
But I think it's an important and fundamental one that must eventually be answered on a global scale if we ever want a peaceful world. At what scale does the right to self determination and rule begin? Obviously a household shouldn't be able to declare itself independent, but a city? County? State? Region?
Crimea has become almost exclusively Russian less than one hundred years ago.
Like in many other regions of the Soviet Union, that was done by force, i.e. by deporting or murdering the native inhabitants.
After bringing Russian colonists in all those regions, the Soviet Union frequently did not need to spend any money for them, because the Russian colonists have been installed directly in the houses vacated by their former owners, who were forced to leave almost all their belongings behind.
So when now the Russians from such territories recently colonized by the Soviet Union complain that the natives do not love them, or that they are discriminated, or that some country wants to maintain control over the colonized territory, while they want to unite with the Empire which gave them the land and houses stolen from others, there is no wonder that such Russian desires are hard to accept for the neighbors of Russia.
Thank you for saying this. Not to derail the conversation bThisut for people who deny something like this happens, is still ongoing in Tibet where the Chinese have or soon will outnumber Tibeteans.
People blast America all the time for its handling of natives in the past, but China typically gets a free pass in the present even though it's policy is no where near that of America's while being much worse.
My point wasn’t that. It was Hawaiins are Americans. Tibetans are Chinese. They are both ethnic minorities within a broader country. While you can look at this in a negative light Hawaiian and Tibetan culture gets diluted by the bigger Anglo and Han influences (respectively) you can also see it provides benefits geographical/economical mobility that was previously not possible. While freedom of movement is not quite the same in China (because of houkou) as it is in the US there are still huge economical opportunities for Tibetans in the SERs of China (Shenzhen, Shanghai, Tianjin). There are huge educational benefits in Beijing, Wuhan, Guangzhou.
Yes the invasion of Tibet was terrible (as was the annexation of Tibet from China before that), and the destruction of Tibetan culture is perhaps even worse, the same can be said for all cultures that have fallen under the guns/germs/steel civilisations. Saying China or the US is bad is kind of missing the point… it would have happened anyway.
Your comment is certainly true, but I think quite misleading to anybody who might not know the history here. The group you're referencing at the Crimean Tatars, a Turkic ethnic group, that were exiled under Stalin - with no relation to Ukraine or Ukrainians.
Today more Tatars live in Crimea than before the exile. Well, at least in modern history, if we go back to times of the Ottoman Empire, things get much more complex. And Russia remains the home of the majority of Tatars today, where they remain a large ethnic minority.
It's an important issue and certainly ironic, but not a direct factor in the current conflict.
You are right that those evacuated from Crimea were not Ukrainians.
This is also true for other regions that belong now to Ukraine, where other nationalities, for example Romanians or Poles or Slovaks, were the prior inhabitants, before being deported or killed and replaced with Russian colonists.
However my point was not about the prior inhabitants, but about the current Russian inhabitants, who protest that nobody should do to them much less than their grandfathers did two generations ago to the natives, by robbing them at gun point of everything they possessed.
Unlike other people, like the Germans, who have paid heavy reparations to their victims, and who have presented solemn apologies for the acts of their ancestors, the Russians have never acknowledged any wrong doing.
To whom Crimea should belong administratively is debatable, but Russia does not have any more rights than Ukraine.
For the neighbors of Russia, a Russian-occupied Crimea or any other regions of Ukraine that remain occupied by Russia are a danger, because there is no sign that Russia will ever stop from its policy of territorial expansion that has been carried on successfully for centuries, with only 2 setbacks, when Russia, after WWI and after 1990 has granted the right of auto-determination to its larger parts, and it was very surprised when everybody opted out.
After WWI, Russia has succeeded to reconquer back in a short time some of the defectors, and after WWII it recovered not only all the lost territories but it gained many more others, plus the vassal countries that were nominally independent but in fact were open for pillage in unbalanced economic relationships.
While all the other European countries appear to have abandoned a long time ago the medieval ideas that the best way for prosperity is to use war against the neighbors and occupy their lands, the Russian dictators remain addicted to such methods, so they remain a danger for all the neighbors of Russia.
This is a thoughtful comment that shouldn't be grayed (as it is at the time of my reading).
But it doesn't answer gp. Whatever an enlightened political philosophy debate might yield, Russia annexed Crimea by force at a time when it was not theirs. Full stop.
However good Russia's case was or however much a majority of the inhabitants wanted control to change, control was ultimately changed via unjustified means that should be rejected by the international community.
The proof of Russia's lack of genuine interest in the will of those people is how quickly it came in to start shooting. You don't resolve national break-ups in weeks or months (see, for example, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia).
I would go back to the root cause there. World War 1 ended up with Brits and Germans killing each other because a Bosnian Serb assassinated an Austro-Hungarian Royal.
The Treaty of Versailles was nothing short of sadistic in the penalties it imposed on Germany which, shockingly, didn't result in Germany rejoining the modern world order (of the time) but growing to despise it even more. It is this which set the stage for the rise of a vegetarian artist who had a knack for oratory and riling up crowds.
WW2 was likely necessary, but WW1 was not. And WW1 created WW2. The worst part is also always the propaganda. When WW1 was being carried out it was being framed, at the time, as 'The War to End All War.' What cause could possibly be more noble? Of course it not only didn't end all war, but even directly led to even more war. And the fundamental cause of the conflict which initially triggered the war persists to this day!
> World War 1 ended up with Brits and Germans killing each other because a Bosnian Serb assassinated an Austro-Hungarian Royal
Russians and French died in much higher numbers on the Entente side than the Brits (who only joined due to Belgium's neutrality being violated anyways).
However, you probably know that the assassination of the morganatically married heir presumptive of the Austro-Hungarian throne was not the real reason for the war, only the spark that ignited the powder keg. There were many reasons and a lot of tension building for decades, starting with, funnily, Germany beating Austria which forced them to expand south, towards Bosnia, and also Germany beating France making the latter want revenge. The former pitted Austria-Hungary against Russia in the Balkans, on top of the many problems between the different Balkan countries. The latter made France eager for revenge and desperate to not be alone next time, hence it's cozying to Russia and the UK. Sprinkle an agressive German naval build-up that pushed the UK towards the Entente, German fears of Russian rearmament, Austrian fears of irrelevance, etc. and you have a powder keg with clearly defined lines just waiting for a spark.
For the Americans? I'd say their policy of being a "neutral" arms dealer mostly made the Americans a ton of money and rocketed them to global superpower status. Now Japan did attack them in a hostile action but America kind of pounded them after so I'm still not sure "neutrality" worked out so badly for them. If anything the Americans started doing worse and worse the more and more they got involved in wars halfway across the world.
For the Brits? Yeah appeasement was kind of a policy failure, Hitler turned out to not be the most trustworthy chap. I dare say Hitler was an unscrupulous chap.
dont forget the tax cuts and bailouts for big business that is added to the US national debt. currently at 31 trillion...but investing in education and healthcare for normal people is socialism
Both are direct expansions of the M1 money supply, which generally speaking will increase demand. Although sustainably stimulating the economy requires sustained investment on the supply side of the demand equation.
The government shut down businesses so it makes sense to compensate them. The government didn't force people to go the college or take out loans to pay for it.
Actually government does. It makes sense to nudge people towards acquiring more skills and they routinely do that. Also, the economy is punishing for those who don't have a college degree (it always was, but perhaps not at this level.)
And how did we reach here? Government policies. I am not saying that these policies were bad. But there can be no denying that government is the major reason why more and more people are going to college. And definitely, if college is not free or subsidised, they will be forced to take loans. Again, because economy is punishing for those who don't have a college education.
I agree the government does nudge people to go to college. The problem is there is a difference between nudging people and arresting people. Nobody is putting a gun to your head requiring you to go to college.
I agree the economy is set up against non college educated people. We should work to change that. Promoting trade schools as legitimate alternatives to college might help. I am not sold that would solve much though. A lot of young people don't want to get into the trades. How many 18 year olds who just graduated high school want to be a plumber?
One thing I will say is that I don't think it is solely the government to blame. Companies require degrees for jobs that don't need it. They probably do it since there is a massive amount of people with degrees so they may as well get one of them to work for the company. We need companies to step up and stop requiring degrees. At the company I work at there are people with degrees who are working in data entry.
The government didn't force businesses to take out loans either. Complying with the law doesn't automatically mean you deserve compensation.
Nevertheless, the government allowed businesses to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country. The government allowed students to take out loans, and in many cases forgave those loans, because it benefits the country.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be college loans. I am saying the job of the government is to help people, and both kinds of loans, an both kinds of loan forgiveness, fall into that category.
Correct. The subsidies were supposed to go for retrofitting builds, covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down. All of which were due to government policies.
==covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down.==
Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries. Most businesses were not shut down. Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. They still got forgivable loans.
Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
>Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries
Obviously some industries weren't impacted. Many were though. The GDP also declined.
You can probably say the same about every recession.
>Most businesses were not shut down
I never said they were. I've seen some estimates at 200,000 businesses. A huge number of businesses went out of business as well.
>Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand.
And lots of businesses who continued running had decreased demand.
Even if the demand remained the same or increased they might not be able to meet the requirements like outside eating or distancing which would limit their revenues.
>Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
It is not socialist. Socialist can mean either state controlled or worker controlled. This is corporate welfare.
Just to be clear. I am not defending this policy. I am strictly saying that this is more justifiable then paying off student loans since the government literally shut many businesses and put other rules on businesses.
But they didn’t only give loans to business who were shut down. That’s the point.
You claimed businesses got loans because the government forced them to close. I am saying that plenty of business that didn’t close (and saw record demand) sought and received loans. Nobody made them take out PPP loans. Once you acknowledge that, it looks a lot like student loans.
As someone who lives in Chicago, it’s odd how obsessed other people are with my city and it’s crime, politics, etc. Don’t see the same interest in other cities.
Dallas and Houston are almost as big (with worse crime rates) and barely make the news. They are also in a Republican state, so Fox News, talk radio, and the like don’t focus on their issues. It’s political. They don’t actually care about crime in these places.
See also: All the talk about Detroit, a very small city.
You're looking at the here and now, but to understand the prominence of cities in the American zeitgeist, you need to understand the history of those cities too.
A hundred years ago Dallas was a small city of less than 200k people, not particularly relevant to anybody outside Texas, but Chicago had a population of 2.7 million and was the economic powerhouse of the entire midwest. And Detroit seems like a generally irrelevant city by the numbers today, but 100 years ago Detroit was America's 4th largest city and in the subsequent decades rapidly became an industrial powerhouse with the rise of the automotive/war industry. Detroit seemed like the future of America, it became very prominent in the American zeitgeist at this time. When people express dismay with Detroit, they're not merely responding to the present conditions of Detroit but also Detroit's failure to make good on the expectations people used to have for the future of Detroit.
If it makes you feel any better, I think 100 years from now people will probably talk about Dallas like they talk about Detroit today.
== Those numbers are so horrendous that you'd be better off going to a bar and hitting on every single woman. You could get shot down 50 times in a row, yet as long as you want to 3 bars in a week w/at least 20 approachable women each, you'd still have a date within a week, which is already 1/3 of the success the guy in your example had in a tiny fraction of the time.==
Treating relationships as an equation to be optimized might be the real hindrance.
You could say that the lowest common denominator of both of these methods is that, in both of them, there is an equation: you are either optimizing the equation, or part of the equation being optimized. You are absolutely being treated like a number on Tinder, after all.
But you can choose the system that gets you what you want, faster.
So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, choose the bar. Choose anything other than Tinder. Because pretty much any dating alternative to Tinder is better than Tinder.
== You could say that the lowest common denominator of both of these methods is that, in both of them, there is an equation==
You certainly could say that, but you have no idea how the variables will react. That sets people up for disappointment when they think they’ve “optimized” human relationships.
== Funnily enough, I left a comparable (to Boston, in incomes, house prices, political attitudes, etc.) metro for a smaller city in a stereotypical "red state", which the residents of my former city are fond of describing as a third-world country.==
I won't name them out of privacy concerns, but I went from a major coastal city (metro population over 3 million) in a state that reliably votes blue to a small city (metro population under half a million) in a state that reliably votes red.
Not sure how you have privacy concerns in metros that large, but I’d be interested to hear what the people in your new metro area say about your old metro area.
Either way, you still moved to a city, so the local politics aren’t likely all that different. Though you did make sure to mention it a few times.
From the point of view of my new city, there's typical banter about how silly/crazy/whatever "those people over there" are, though there is a general consensus that the people of my old city are richer. There's no equivalent to the people of my old city dismissing this region as a "shithole" or "third-world country", I guess because objectively there is more wealth there. People here generally feel that they are freer here and prefer to make that tradeoff against more money.
I’m fascinated by how different people define being “free”. From my perspective legal sports betting, legal medical and recreational marijuana, not banning books, not dictating what teachers can/can’t teach, freedom to protest without being run-over, biometric privacy, and choice for women makes for a “freer” place than having loose gun laws and slightly lower taxes.
It’s interesting how you read DEI and immediately think it only applies to black people. Have you actually asked a black person what they think about it? If so, what did they say? If not, maybe you should.
What are the DEI policies that you support from the Republican candidate? I’ve never heard of that type of one-issue voter.