Saying that woke excess is "made-up" and "hysteria" is gaslighting. Coca Cola ran a diversity training encouraging employees to "be less white": https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-co.... The Smithsonian has a whole page on "whiteness" treating it like it's a bad thing. If you work a college degree-required job, you've probably had an employer recommend you read something by Robin Di Angelo, who claims she "tries to be a little less white every day."
I've never met anyone who got offended when I said "Merry Christmas." I've repeatedly run into instances of woke excess over the past year. The faculty at my law school declared themselves "gatekeepers of white supremacy" on a Zoom call: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator.... (The interim dean, who declared himself a "racist," is a friend of mine, and I was shocked to read about his behavior.) Even the whole Dr. Seuss thing--"Mulberry Street," which was cancelled, is one of my daughter's favorite books. I bought it for her a couple of years ago new at a Barnes and Noble in Annapolis. It's not some obscure relic of history.
I think it's tremendously disingenuous to deny that this phenomenon has crossed the line from "manufactured outrage" into "real concern."
This highlights the disagreement perfectly. Progressives view history as "the long march of progress". To progressives, ceasing to publish certain Dr. Seuss books, saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Chistmas," using terms like "latinx" and "BIPOC," announcing your pronouns, denouncing "whiteness," etc are part of the same historical process that ended slavery and passed the Civil Rights Act.
I just don't view history that way. I view historical causation and direction as fundamentally mysterious. There are a very large number of plausible interpretations of history and they all seem pretty convincing while being completely contradictory. We should argue over these interpretations, because some of them are better than others, but we shouldn't take any of them as gospel.
There's also lots of progressive ideas that turn out to be ideological dead ends. Prohibition was heavily supported by women's suffragists, and was seen as a progressive social reform. Building highways through the middle of cities was seen as a progressive and futuristic approach. Eugenics was, of course, the nadir in terms of progressive ideological dead ends in the 20th century.
Take the example of same-sex marriage. Academics like Judith Butler have consistently opposed same-sex marriage because they believe it does not go far enough to dismantle, and indeed entrenches, what they see as a repressive, patriarchal institution: https://theconversation.com/why-same-sex-marriage-is-not-the... ("But there is actually a large amount of anti-homophobic academic and everyday writing from thinkers and activists that probes the numerous problems associated with same-sex marriage."). Andrew Sullivan recognized this back in 1989, arguing that same-sex marriage was the conservative option to accommodating gays and lesbians, compared to the radical dismantling of traditional norms that people like Judith Butler espoused: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-vot....
That same Judith Butler is a leading academic in the field where "whiteness" is used as a pejorative and "objectivity" is attacked as "white culture." Maybe that, too, is an intellectual dead end, not real progress?
I don't claim there was a single ideology underpinning the reasons for the calls for social change. I'm saying that there are usually people (radicals, progressives) calling for social change, and others (conservatives) warning against it, and the rhetoric employed is similar throughout history (e.g. "if you only asked for a little less", or "the previous demands were reasonable, but the new ones are excessive"). That's understandable, as conservatives throughout history sometimes don't like to appear -- possibly even to themselves -- as the enemies of progress so they claim to be in favour of "reasonable progress," but whatever it is that the progressives currently call for is unreasonable; of course, a generation later, the story repeats. Ideas like women's suffrage were deemed outright preposterous, risible, and too silly to seriously consider; in fact, it took actual acts of terror by feminist activists and a world war to get them the vote.
So if you want to compare current demands to previous ones in order to explain the reaction to them, I'm saying that you should also compare current reactions to previous ones. "Previous demands were reasonable, but now they've really crossed a line," has been pretty much the conservative refrain going back millenia to the patricians and plebeians of ancient Rome. All of this is why I reject talk of "excess." It's just how conservatives speak of social change for millenia. You can say that you agree or disagree with some policy, but the "this is too much" line is just a cliché.
Criticizing "defund the police" (as in, actually defunding the police) or normalizing the use of "whiteness" as a pejorative is not a bad thing just because conservatives do it. In fact, conservatives are doing society a valuable service by pushing back on those things. I'm quite sure in the retrospect of history, those will be proven to be "bad ideas progressives tried at one point" rather than examples of real advancement.
Having said that, I'm fairly certain that in the retrospect of history, conservative pushback on the change in our understanding of race would look like another incarnation of white supremacy, and would appear as horrendously wrong to the people in the future as segregation appears to us to day, so much so that the conservatives of the future will use them as an example of something that is obviously right, unlike whatever social change people call for then.
Or this one, "I'm not to blame for being white!": https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2008661643/
Or another one, also ridiculing "free love" and criminalisation of tobacco, and other positions held by abolitionists Republicans: https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2003656588/
I don’t think the person you are replying to would agree with you about affirmative actions being a good thing. Other than that, the left is super repressive of free speech which is the only civil right left to win , detrimental to wage growth and worker rights by supporting unlimited immigration, bad for education by siding with teachers unions, manipulative when it comes to voting to the point when half of the country does not believe in elections. The right simply does not exist in the institutional level at this point, all they can do is whine about excesses of the left
I disagree with essentially everything you're saying, but how on Earth can you write that with a straight face? I mean, five seconds on Google gives me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...
Many elected Republicans are still lying about the election results. How is that 'the left' being 'manipulative when it comes to voting'? Not to mention the slew of disenfranchisement policies being drawn up by Republicans at the moment.
> The right simply does not exist in the institutional level at this point, all they can do is whine about excesses of the left
Erm, what "left" are you referring to? US politics is a battle between Pepsi vs Coke https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
So we have voter IDs and secure voting? Did you miss the part about lack of confidence in voting? If we don’t have voter IDs how is the right lying? Or are you just trying to reaffirm the narrative?
voting machines
doctored videos
shipments of empty votes
observers turned away
disappearing ink
The funny thing is that Trump’s own appointed people, including Krebs who we cite here a lot, but also Barr and others admitted that there was not nearly enough evidence of fraud to overturn any election result in any state.And even funnier is how FOX and NewsMax debunked themselves and now chase the My Pillow CEO and others off their show for suggesting there was voting machine fraud — because they got cease and desist letters and warnings.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/03/newsmax-mike-...
After all, this is really easy to check.
The irony for me was Texas suing the other states and then West floating a trial baloon to secede from the union (great form, West!) because they accused the other states of vote manipulation... this from a state that works hard to close HUNDREDS of poll places in Democratic areas ahead of the election to keep the state voting Republican, in blatant violation of the Voting Rights Act (neutered by the supreme court). And no one sues Texas in federal court for that.
For Republicans, mail-in ballots were the end-run around their extensive efforts to close polling places and require voting IDs and other ways to tip the balance in their party’s favor. If people can just vote from home then all that effort to drive an hour and stand in a long line will be unnecessary! So they aren’t being totally honest about their FUD being nonpartisan either.
After all that money came in to campaign promising to "fight for every LEGAL vote to be counted", Giuliani never even applied to the supreme court. A lot of it seems to have been about taking in massive amounts of money (up to 1 billion dollars) from faithful Trump voters via the campaigns. Giuliani distanced himself from Sidney Powell who actually wanted to go to the supreme court, seemingly in order to not share the large sums of cash coming in from MAGA supporters.
Also, I am not "a dem". You assume too much.
And btw, many people on the right, including social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, are also very critical of the Republican leadership. Here is far more information about why[2].
1. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-pennsylvan...
2. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-believe-Republicans...
Meanwhile in actual face to face conversations people can’t stop talking about it. Some have given up out of desperation but pointing to lack of media culture and deplatforming does nothing but support the claims and issues i’m pointing out.
Evidence please.
I am aware that 'left bias' is a consistent lie perpetuated by right-wing media, which contradicts at least twenty years of research on the subject, e.g.
https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/07/twitters-not-shadow-bannin...
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/platform-bias.php
https://web.archive.org/web/20031230091158/http://www.whatli...
> Knowing that, and today’s extreme cancel culture...
I would highly recommend taking a course on logic and critical thinking. In particular regarding the "principle of explostion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
> Even here on HN these posts have support, until dems downvote it beyond the upvotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
> Meanwhile in actual face to face conversations people can’t stop talking about it.
And I need to take a class in logic....
>> > Even here on HN these posts have support, until dems downvote it beyond the upvotes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
So you watch the votes and downvotes come in? Before the downvote parade I had near 10 upvotes, net result after dems, -20. Clearly this is a conspiracy.
> Meanwhile in actual face to face conversations people can’t stop talking about it.
So instead your sampling bias is correct? Where is your evidence?
We don't have voter ID checks at the actual polling place for casting your vote, but we have signature checks and comparisons of who purported to vote with who is actually registered to vote at that polling place, and there are checks and verification involved in getting to that point.
This is sufficient to catch any double voting or voting as someone else that occurs at sufficient scale to be above the normal error rate.
The allegations still being made about election fraud by some Republicans have nothing to do with people double voting or voting as someone else. They are that election workers slipped in extra pre-filled ballots, or that they ran Biden ballots through the tabulating machines multiple times, or that the machines were programmed to switch votes, or that there are statistical anomalies in the vote totals or counting that could only be there due to fraud.
Every one of these is based on one or more of the following kinds of things:
1. There is simply no way, they say, Trump could possible have gotten less votes than Biden. There must have been fraud. (Variation: Trump got more votes in 2020 than Obama got in 2008 or Clinton got in 2016, so how could he lose? Completely ignoring that voter turnout was a lot higher in 2020)
2. Someone seeing something and misunderstanding it. E.g., one of the prominent claims of running ballots through the tabulating machine multiple times was actually an election worker before the count started running a test ballot through multiple times.
That's part of the standard pre-election test and setup procedure that the manufacturer's instruction call for before each election. The person who saw it happening was a volunteer who had skipped the training session where they covered that.
3. Taking things out of context. E.g., surveillance video purporting to show extra ballots being sneaked in to a counting area overnight, where we see someone pull boxes out from under a table and remove a bunch of ballots and start counting them.
We do indeed see that. But if you obtain the whole video instead of that short clip, you see that those boxes contain the ballots that were being counted when it was time for the counters to take a break. They put the uncounted ballots in their standard ballot storage lock boxes, put the boxes under the table, took their break, came back, retrieved the ballots from the boxes, and resumed counting. All completely normal.
4. Ignoring the recounts. The machines alleged to have switched Trump votes leave a paper trail. The hand recounts from the places where this switching is alleged to have occurred match the machine count.
5. Misunderstanding statistics. E.g., claims that first digit distributions of candidate totals across districts or counties not following Benford's law is proof of fraud. The mistake here is that Benford's law only applies to certain kinds of samplings of certain kinds of distributions. The distribution of population and of votes across districts or counties in most areas is not the right kind for this.
6. Ignoring that in-person election day votes are counted in many areas before mail-in ballots are counted. (Indeed, in some Republican controlled states, they have passed laws preventing election officials from starting to count mail-in ballots until the polls close).
Combine this with COVID in many "rural red, urban blue" states, where in-person urban voting often means long crowded lines at polling places, and you had a much higher percentage of urban voters going to mail-in voting than is usual. On top of that, Democrats on average were more likely to take COVID seriously, further shifting mail-in votes to be more likely to be from Democrats.
Result: in effect those states ended up counting Republican ballots first, then Democrat ballots. And so of course Trump was ahead in the evening, and then Biden got most of the later counted mail-in ballots, which mostly came from the large urban areas.
None of that has anything whatsoever to do with voter ID.
> This is sufficient to catch any double voting or voting as someone else that occurs at sufficient scale to be above the normal error rate.
Most of the country doesn’t believe this. Regardless of what you believe, being on the other side nobody on the right will believe you. You stand to benefit most from this.
Could you please point out where the parent claims to be a Democrat? I don't see it anywhere in what they've said, or in the past few days of their comment history.
> Most of the country doesn’t believe this.
I'm not sure about "most", but it's certainly a significant fraction; presumably caused by Trump's refusal to admit defeat.
> Regardless of what you believe, being on the other side nobody on the right will believe you. You stand to benefit most from this.
What do you mean by "other side"? The Democrats? I would again ask where you got the idea that the parent is a Democrat; I don't see it in their posts.
I think you may be mixing up cause and effect. Your claim seems to be that people on the right will not believe what the parent poster says, because the parent poster is a Democrat. However, your response is evidence of the inverse: that people on the right will believe the parent poster is a Democrat, because of what the parent poster says.
This mistake is troubling, since it admits a circular argument: Democrats aren't believed, and those who aren't believed are Democrats. Like all circular arguments, this is self-consistent whilst being completely detached from reality (the content of any claims, evidence, etc. are irrelevant; that self-justifying loop will work for anything).
Yes, reread their comment, apply context, it should be apparent.
> I'm not sure about "most", but it's certainly a significant fraction; presumably caused by Trump's refusal to admit defeat.
Why do you think Trump has anything to do with it? He doesn't. Really people couldn't care less about Trump. The system is flawed regardless.
> This mistake is troubling, since it admits a circular argument: Democrats aren't believed, and those who aren't believed are Democrats. Like all circular arguments, this is self-consistent whilst being completely detached from reality (the content of any claims, evidence, etc. are irrelevant; that self-justifying loop will work for anything).
Hmmm, yup we have a divide in this country, mostly caused by dems refusal to accept and admit the right are people with opinions, ideas and feelings as well. Right doesn't believe left, left doesn't believe right. So, divide we have!
I did. It was not apparent; hence why I asked.
> Why do you think Trump has anything to do with it?
If we're still talking about "it" being a significant fraction of the US public being distrustful of the election process/results, then Trump's main relevance is the combination of:
- His holding of the most powerful office in the world for four years
- His direct attacks on the election process/results, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Dona...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#Trump's_claim_of_a_sto...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_...
- The attacks on the election process/results by other Repulican politicians, either using Trump's example to seize or cling-to power, or to curry Trump's favour, or to avoid Trump's wrath (either direct, or indirect like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_... ), e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_...
- The attacks on the election process/results by members of the public, following Trump's example, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_...
> Really people couldn't care less about Trump.
You mean, other than the 74,216,154 who voted for him? Many of whom are in no way casual about their support:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrations_in_support_of_D...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism
> we have a divide in this country, mostly caused by dems refusal to accept and admit the right are people with opinions, ideas and feelings as well.
Do you anything at all to back up such absurd partisan hyperbole?
> The system is flawed regardless.
Lol, what fatalistic nonsense. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw
Notice this started before Trump was elected? The rest of your comment is trying to support your belief this is somehow about Trump, therefore ignored.
The right does not exist in the institutional level? Has anyone told Mitch McConnell about this, or Justice Thomas?
But it's important to remember the "left" raising flags about fraud in the 2016 election, and primary. Everything from harping on the legitimacy of a candidate that lost the popular vote, "not my president" protests, accusations of voting machine fraud, primary delegate issues, conflating gerrymandering with federal elections, etc...
In general, it seems whichever side loses is increasingly blaming "unfairness" to generate more outrage to de-legitimize winners of the election. ...rather than trying to appeal to more voters.
We're all losers in this situation because it is the voting system that keeps us from killing each other.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
From the sounds of it, you think the beginning was 2020. There's a long history of implying the "other side's" win is questionable, across the globe and including the US.
I mean when McCarthyism, Hoover’s FBI and COINTELPRO were repressing leftists left and right, sabotaging political campaigns and careers, this was considered a national security issue.
I mean, until Bernie Sanders, no politician openly called themselves a socialist. This is recent.
Are there any open atheists in US politics? Just curious
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/07/...
Eugene Debs?
AEI has been a little less controversial, although they've also leaned heavily on politicians about climate change, and their biggest funders are/were the Koch brothers. Notably, they were one of the earliest predictors of the 2008 housing crisis, though their focus (while not entirely incorrect) was about the causing effects of government banking, rather than private sector greed.
The Cato Institute is another organization founded and funded by one of the Kochs. The Cato Institute has lobbied hard for the deconstruction, outsourcing and privatization of the USPS (to recent great success), NASA, TSA. They have lobbied for the abolishment of minimum wage and in the absence thereof have fervently pushed for not increasing it (which hasn't happened since 2007 - legislation-wise, though the last increase went into effect in early 2009). It opposes overtime regulation and of all things, child labor prohibition (thankfully this hasn't gained much traction). It is one of the biggest opponents of universal health care, and of campaign finance reform.
In 2006 it helped Republicans propose a Balanced Budget Veto Amendment. It also strongly criticized the tobacco settlements.
Interestingly enough, the Cato Institute also supported striking down state laws against homosexuality, and the Federal Marriage Act (which would have prohibited same-sex marriage).
That article describes how in Dubai they handle an average temperature of over 100 ℉ with no problems by having air conditioned homes, offices, cars, buses, trains, and shopping malls. It's abundant oil and a government that promotes economic freedom that allows this, it says.
It then ties it to dealing with climate change:
> The current average world temperature is about 58 degrees. The true believers in climate change are predicting global catastrophe if that temperature rises by a worst-case estimate of 7 degrees Fahrenheit. That would bring the world average temperature to about 65 degrees.
> Dubai, today, is doing quite well at an average temperature 35 degrees higher.
> Obviously, Dubai is on the cutting edge of technology and prosperity as a result of its oil endowment and government policies that promote economic freedom and growth.
> Not every country has oil, but in a globalized market, cheap fossil fuels are available everywhere to spur rapid growth and technological change.
Wow.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
When I applied to college, I (and all of my friends), knew that ticking any non-white ethnicity box on the application made you more likely to get accepted. I don't know that any of us did, but it was very well known that you could game the system this way.
It made acceptance into college less about your academic merit and more about your ethnicity (or ability to use ethnic bias to cheat the system) - aka, more racism.
What affirmative action is supposed to do is to ensure that your race isn't a determining factor in not getting hired for a job that you are qualified for.
The Rooney Rule in the NFL wouldn't need to be a thing if being a black coach in the NFL meant statistically you had a greater chance of getting fired or not being hired at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
No, that's wrong. If that were the goal, it would simply be made illegal to ask about race (or race-proxy) on college application forms.
Affirmative action is meant to artifically boost the number of college graduates from a selected set of underrepresented backgrounds. If it weren't the goal, this blind recruitment trial wouldn't have been immediately canceled: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tri...
Protectionist thinking is off-putting to many when it strays over some imaginary line to where I act as if I must be the champion for an underrepresented group because they think I think they are less capable. When I join with them to help, it’s generally welcome; when an influential person speaks as if that help is charitable (rather than equitable), it puts off some people.
problem with this line is that those in power now in America aren't solving any of these issues. they engage in window dressing and have been doing so since at least Clinton. they are left-INO. What US considers center left actually is right. Unless a new progressive party is formed (AOC, Sanders etc) and this party manages then to become a serious contender and accepted in mainstream, US politics will remain what it is: a farce.
edit: Right Marcuseanism - Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” is often cited as the progenitor of the censorious left, but its real ideological heirs are now on the right: https://outsidertheory.com/right-marcuseanism/ (I shared this yesterday and it's a shame it hasn't gotten more traction considering it goes much deeper into the problem than any (justified) rant on master/slave branches and Tech/github's hypocrisy)
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act#Insurance_...
That's...misleading. Sure, the broad outline of a policy like the ACA first emerged as a joint Republican/insurance industry idea for national reform after the failure of the Clinton healthcare plan when it looked like there might still be enough demand for some national reform that they could use a strategy, and yes something broadly similar was pushed successfully by Republican Governor Romney at the state level (in Massachusetts, not Utah.) But even the national Republican party had moved right since then, under Bush, they had toyed with mandatory purchase of specifically HDHP/HSA plans, rather than traditional insurance, before deciding that health reform wasn't something that even needed to be on the agenda at all.)
As far as window dressing goes, we see this from both parties. They talk and vote radical when they are out of power. When they are in power, everything is status quo.
The ACA is incredibly complex, widely variable in implementation, and didn't actually help healthcare costs. Repealing Don't Ask was a symbolic step. Actual change in LGBT rights came from the Supreme Court. The Paris Agreement is the ultimate window dressing; it allows every country involved to point to it and say they're taking action on climate change, without requiring literally any changes.
These are all classic Democratic Party moves. They take on the appearance of doing something while kicking the issue down the road a few years for someone else to deal with.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/22/politics/biden-charlamagne-th...
And the right pursues many of these things as well, albeit in very different and sometimes polarizing ways. But we should not pretend that leftist policies are not just as polarizing.
As to worker rights - both sides are equally happy to throw them under the bus.
Wasn’t it black moderates that powered centrist Biden to the nomination? Bernie and Warren’s failure to gain any significant traction with the black electorate sunk their progressive candidacies.
The people in the US aren't all that progressive.
The new options they presented flopped pretty badly. It's hard to look at Harris on the basis of her performance in the 2020 primary as being an especially strong frontrunner but it's even harder to think up of any alternatives who will be in strong enough of a position to displace her.
The man has been pursuing the most progressive agenda since FDR.
Here's the BBC, a center left news website:
> The group that saw the biggest increase in support for Trump compared to 2016, however, was black men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54972389
Here's Forbes - check the last 4 elections:
https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5fa99cf43b8...
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2020/11/09/no-tru...
It’s pretty hard to measure such a statement, but I noticed that Trump won 8% of the black vote in 2020 and 6% in 2016. [0] And it seems Romney won 6% in 2012. [1]
It’s not smart to extrapolate some trend from these three data points, but I don’t think its accurate to dismiss claims that this isn’t happening. Comically, dismissing the claims of a literal black person walking away from the left speaking of others in vis community is sort of like what the author is saying happens with people patronizing black persons and making decisions for them (eg, “it’s not happening” and “master offends you”).
[0] https://www.vox.com/2020/11/4/21537966/trump-black-voters-ex... [1] http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2012
I could be missing something here for sure. Like I mentioned am not well versed in American race politics nor in statistics.
Also add this to your data collection efforts:
1) A lot of black people don't identify as black on government forms. Whether it is for the census, some voter form I might not be aware of, a vaccine enrollment, or on a standardized test in the private sector. Out of previously substantiated fear of worse treatment or discrimination, but an inability to tell which contexts and future contexts. There won’t be data on this.
2) A lot (maybe most?) of black people don't live in states where their vote really matters for the Presidency or the Senate. Population centers, California, New York. While there is also a cultural pride in leveraging the earned ability to vote (and sustained ability at the individual level, as felons have their rights removed in many states). So there are additional deterrents in wasting it on non-consensus views of that state.
3) The way I saw the data collected about % of black people voting seemed to be based surveys, and not really cross referencing all voter data with the census. Feel free to correct my understanding and I would like to read more about that.
That depends whether you distinguish between the Left and the Democratic Party. Most minority voters remain firm Democrats, although fewer than in 2016. Many/most minorities I've met, including myself, are completely disenchanted with "the Left" as an activist bloc that tries to take over or derail the Party. That bloc is simply two or three times as strict about "culture war" issues - which I agree with you are ultimately nigh-meaningless, but alas - as about the "kitchen table" issues where most people actually agree with them.
In short, you can be a racial or ethnic minority who wants universal healthcare, a new voting rights bill, and to strengthen workers' unions, but then you dissent from the "Left" agenda on one culture-war issue, one that theoretically applies to your group but which you were never consulted about, and bam, the Left hates you and wants you gone.
"Everyone get in line, we have to stop Trump" only worked while Trump was in office. It's hard to tell people we all need to get behind whichever street protest is marching downtown now, with Biden in office willingly signing surprisingly progressive bills like the stimulus.
I didn't say they're meaningless. Sadly, I'm one of those noisy, crazy woke, anti-free-speech neo-Marxists, but that doesn't mean I don't care more about minimum wage and healthcare. The culture war is very important to me, but other things are even more important/urgent.
> and bam, the Left hates you and wants you gone.
Nope. When such large groups are concerned, of course you'll find people who'd want to ostracize you one way or the other, so the choice of what the "Left" is to you is ultimately on you. If that's what you focus on, an aspect of the left that you don't like but which has been a part of it for a hundred years, then you're just looking for excuses.
Funny thing: you're dismissing my case here without even bothering to find out what the object-level example was going to be! You skipped the part where I explicitly specified that I'm talking about a culture-war issue that applies specifically and in depth to my minority group, too, not some opportunity to pontificate on other people's problems.
At some point America's popular culture will internalize that the wage gap was a myth and etc and appreciate that the left has been peddling pseudoscience for ages in the name of intellectual vanity.
Too many generations lost being the lefts rosemary kennedy.
The feminists argue by taking the average of all wages, and of course women produce less economic value overall when they're still the primary caregiver in most societies.
The wage gap is better phrased as ‘women, on average, do jobs that pay only 73% as much as men’. Which, in my opinion, is actually a far worse and harder to solve problem. Paying women the same as their male counterparts is easy. That’s why there isn’t really much of a gap in same profession comparisons. Getting women into more lucrative careers or getting Society to pay more for traditionally women dominated industries is much much harder.
To your question: The wage gap ‘myth’ is the misinterpretation of the statistic to say that women are paid much less for the same work.