So in response to my post how dominant white males are as elected
Republican members of Congress, I got this reply:
"Only 2% of black people are republican so this makes sense right? Try to turn this into a racist thing?"
Because white people can’t vote for black candidates? Or, let’s say, men can’t vote for women?
#How to not use statistics intelligently
I don’t want to reflexively back your probably-dumb interlocutor—but the statement can’t be dismissed quite that easily. Before candidates can be elected you’ve got to recruit them. If your political party is mostly white men, that’s your candidate pool.
Then you have the problem that basically all politics are identity politics. White people can vote for black candidates. But … for some reason a party disproportionately composed of white dudes elects an awful lot of white dudes.
I don’t think there’s any need to “try to turn this into a racist thing.” Maybe the disproportionate racial makeup of the Republican Party is a coincidence?
Politicalprof: ehh. I think you have perhaps conflated the broader membership of the Republican Party among voters with the membership of the Republican Party serving in Congress. There is no way the demographics of the Republican Party are 98% white males among Republican voters even as it is mostly white males in Congress.
It is certainly the case the Republicans skew white and male even among voters. But that’s not all there is.
Plus, the Democrats used to have the same problem, with the additional fact that they were pretty much a Southern-only party. Then, with some remarkable policy changes, their demographic makeup shifted in turn.
In 2012 Lindsay Graham noted that Republicans aren’t producing enough “angry white guys” to survive in the long term. The scary part for them is that little appears to be changing in 2014.
Quick points—though I don’t think we disagree too much.
- The commentor’s claim was that 2% of African Americans are Republicans, not that 2% of Republicans are African American. I haven’t checked the number on that.
- I think your point holds on the gender split but not the race split.
- The Democrats solved their problem. The Republicans could elect to do the same thing. But … right.
Emails don’t just disappear in a puff of smoke when a hard drive crashes. That’s not how the internet works. It’s how the Obama administration wants you to the think the internet works, but that’s not how the internet actually works.
Now, the Justice Department is…
I’m not going to add this one to any list until somebody tells me what the DoJ official actually said rather than a paraphrase by an attorney for a partisan organization.
George Zimmerman was arrested in Ferguson, Missouri after a verbal altercation with two black teenagers, all of which was captured on cell phone.
I shouldn’t find this so fucking
tragic funny, but fuck him.
I thought he was homeless? How’d he get to Ferguson?
This is not a real thing.
Completely crushed it at work today. Stood in for the director as her designee during a state commission meeting. Someone tried to step to me but ya boy stayed cool. Anyway now I’m watching a Jackie Chan movie and playing Civ 5. I have an order of celebratory wings on the way. Planning to get wasted. Might live/drunk blog a close reading of the McCullen SCOTUS ruling later because I’m really cool
Sidenote: I just finished a Civ V game where I won the space race as the Babylonians. I basically decided to just sprint to the end of the tech tree, build a space ship, and leave conquering the world for the suckers. No wars the entire game. Lessons learned: 1. It worked. 2. It was really, really boring. Like I built a giant death robot then didn’t use it.
And I use that term loosely,
Since a lot of the “feminism”
I’ve been seeing lately
Sounds an awful lot like misandry.
And irrelevant questions about
Bags of toxic candy.
"Feminists" will say that because I’m a white male
In a privileged position you shouldn’t listen to me.
You’re such a fucking idiot and I’m reblogging this just so people point and laugh at your pathetic woo-woo excuse for poe-tree.
"I’m a humanist!" "Feminists are misandrist!" Super fucking original arguments, bro. You really made us think.
From one privileged white dude to another, you can’t be doing this stuff. You just broke at least half a dozen major rules. That’s not me being the PC police. I mean the rules like “wear deodorant” that prevent you from inadvertently making enemies by not knowing you stink.
- Give it space. Even if you disagree, in light of a tragedy, step back a bit. It’s too soon. Never ever put yourself somewhere where you’re saying “I’m sorry for you loss, but…”
- White guys trying to do rhyming poetry and/or rap really need to understand scansion.
- Careful with other people’s tags. Particularly when a tag is getting a lot of attention. I’m thinking in particular of that #yesallwoman tag. It’s a thing that’s happening and you’ve got to let it be not about you.
- No internal rhyme involving friend/end unless you are under twelve or an aging rocker whose phoning in a mediocre record to pay off a cartel.
- No poetry that concludes, “All you need is love.” People have allergies. I know The Beatles did it a long time ago but they were going through a phase, okay. Joking aside, gender-motivated violence is a serious issue and “can’t we all just love eachother” is not a serious solution.
- Don’t say “I’m an equalist” or anything like that if you’re trying to critique feminism or any sub-movement thereof. It’s just not a cogent critique. It makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Feminism, as an intellectual project, digs deeply into ways that gender affect society. Unsurprisingly, it turns out it does so in ways that are, on net, grossly unfair to women. So … let’s do a quick thought experiment about M&Ms. Say I try to divide a pack of M&Ms between us. You observe that my pile looks a lot bigger than yours. I say, “No. I believe in equal division of M&Ms.” You say, “But you have 48 and I only got 7.” I say, “No. I believe in equality—why are you hatefully counting M&Ms. Don’t you believe in equalism” And you say, “Could maybe I just have three more of yours to make this a bit more fair?” And I’m like, “I earned these, hater.”
- Part of solving a problem is understanding it. Part of understanding is seeing the patterns. When we observe, for example, that women experience sexual violence and unwanted sexual advances far, far more than men, it should tell us that there’s a problem. With that knowledge, we can look for ways to solve it. And when you object or become defensive when people raise the issue, people might legitimately wonder whether you’re on their side or the problem’s.
We all react to tragedies in different ways. I understand that. And I understand that we’ve all got stuff to say. I don’t know your situation. But for most of us white dudes, this is one where our best contribution to public discourse is to conscientiously create space for those with more important things to say. That could mean keeping quiet or at least taking it a bit easy on self-promotion through tags for a while. Or it could mean encouraging others to step back a bit.
The only reason why I wouldn’t fuck a short guy is if he was hung up on being short.
That shit is boring as fuq. Life is too short*, and there are too many men interested in me. Take a number and quit crying, Napoleon
This one time I was in line at a bagel shop and started feeling weird and insecure. A there were all these guys around me. Some were my height. Some were taller. Some were a bit shorter—but not as much sorter than usual. They all had shirts that said things like “Springfield Basketball.” So basically I couldn’t figure out why I felt weird and left.
All I’m saying is that I started getting hangups when I was a normal height for like three minutes.
Penance makes good glue.
This is heresy. Christians are saved by grace. Penance is wonderful, but it is an expression of gratitude for forgiveness, which is freely granted.
Peg, while you’re right, of course, that the plate thin is heresy, I’m most amused by calling a picture of a broken plate “heresy.”
Hey so the New York Federal Reserve has an awesome (if bleak) article about homeownership and student loan debt. Before the crash, thirty-year-olds with student loans were way more likely to have taken out mortgages (because student loans mean degrees which mean higher income). But since the crash, this has reversed - young adults are all taking out fewer mortgages and those with student loans are taking out even fewer.
[cut for genuflection towards sinister capitalist overlords]
I’d add a couple of other things that could be contributing to this. First, an increase in the sort of for-profit loan harvesting school could shift the balance quite a bit. Traditionally, student loans correlated with degrees and employment potential. But then you get schools like the Richmond School of Health and Technology. So now you have people with student loan debt who don’t have any sort of useful degrees.
Second, if people are buying homes slightly later in their careers due to tightened credit or any other factor, we could expect a trend like this. Somebody who starts a job right out of highschool could be in year nine at 27. Somebody who gets a four year degree might only be in year 5 at 27. This could also correlate with trends on when people get married or have kids.
The second point is entirely what the New York Fed is talking about here, so no disagreements there. Effectively people are getting into homeownership way later in life than they used to, and even later if they have student loan debt. So this is a problem in terms of encouraging retirement savings and the efficacy of tax breaks for mortgage holders and so on.
As for the first point - unquestionably there are some very sinister for-profit schools saddling students with massive debt and useless degrees. But I’m not sure that’s a new post-crash phenomenon - that link refers to RSHT students going back to 2004. A couple weeks ago I posted about a study from the San Francisco Fed that suggests degree holders are still earning way more than non-degree holders - I think that’s a sign that useless degrees aren’t yet a big problem at the aggregate level?
I have no idea whether the sort of thing happening at RSHT is a big enough thing to affect numbers. I do know that a whole lot of my super-vulnerable, indigent clients went back to school at the height of the recession. And a lot were in programs that weren’t going to grant degrees—and certainly weren’t going to grant a BA. But I don’t know if that was a local thing or a temporary spike or whatever.