US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Usually 'economic anxiety' is thought to be about people who have little real financial security or wealth and realistically fear that they will lose what little they have and be stuck in actual poverty.

I’m reminded of how Bill Maher talked about the the rioter who was shot; he talked of her failed businesses and economic woes as reason for her radicalization with the impression this could be ascribed to most of the rioters and the qanon movement in general and clucked his tongue at liberals for not being empathetic to the opposition.

But really He supplanted most of their actual concerns—being replaced as the dominant group—with his own. They’re more reasonable, ergo they must be the true reasons this group of mostly white Americans must be acting out.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah, no one knows what will happen past one generation into the future, but some of the speculative population projections indicate ~10-11 billion around 2100 whereby the fertility rate barely equals the requirement for replacement. Slow increase, slow decrease or a plateau are all possible, but I think a steep decline may be one of the less likely outcomes

[Maithanet]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, no one knows what will happen past one generation into the future, but some of the speculative population projections indicate ~10-11 billion around 2100 whereby the fertility rate barely equals the requirement for replacement. Slow increase, slow decrease or a plateau are all possible, but I think a steep decline may be one of the less likely outcomes

Well if climate change makes subsistence living in much of Africa and Southeast Asia impossible (which many models predict) then a steep decline in world population is almost a certainty.  But that has nothing to do with slowing birth rates, and there's still some hope that future will not come to pass. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure if it's more conscious or unconscious, but I think many white conservatives fear that once they become a minority all the horrors they've done to people of color will then be done to them. 

I wonder if that is not only a driver of the Republican racism but also a large factor in the insecurity and paranoia that drives them to arm themselves to the gills?

If it weren't for guns I think a significant percentage of Republicans would regularly lock themselves in closets daily.

[DMC]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that people that are relatively wealthy/well off cannot share economic anxiety.  To be clear, that is definitely not the case.  Well some of the items that compose a traditional economic anxiety index would be difficult for a rich person to identify with, there are also plenty of sociotropical items included - as well as many individual/personal questions that even a rich person could easily register.

That being said, obviously I agree that it is racial resentment, not economic anxiety - or, as touched upon, respondents cloaking their racial resentment with economic anxiety - that is driving the attitudes, preferences, and of course extreme behavior of the respondents we're discussing.

Anyway, came here for this:  After two decades of FNC whining about a War on Christmas, finally - finally - someone is taking the war to them.  Godless commie heathens unite!

 

[sologdin]

once they become a minority all the horrors they've done to people of color will then be done to them. 

we see that irrational fear in every robot apocalypse story, from capek and asimov to the matrix and BSG: the slave class doesn't want emancipation, as per the letter of the law, but revenge genocide, according to the logic of the ruling class. 

 

relatively wealthy/well off cannot share economic anxiety

yeah, a bizarre assumption.  capitalism is premised on that anxiety.  it's why billionaires might feel as though they're losing their ass--it's why this sort of economic hoarding occurs, against market failure and catastrophic loss.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The tree, the tree, the tree is on fire, the tree, the tree, the tree is on fire, we don't need no water let ****ing fox news burn. burn fox news burn.

Musical reference for those who didn't know it.

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Musical reference for those who didn't know it.

Great reference, takes me back to middle school.

Alright @Jaxom 1974, just saw this piece on Tish James' (lack of a) campaign from Politico, and the following excerpt has definitely gotten me on board with hating on Politico:

Quote

“It’s a little bit bizarre. I would have thought she would have come out like a cannon,” said Republican political consultant Bill O’Reilly, who had top campaign roles in the past two gubernatorial elections in New York. “It’s almost as though she’s taking a Rose Garden strategy, and Kathy Hochul’s too strong for that … It’s a really competitive primary, she’s behind in public polling, and Hochul’s traversing the state every day.”

What.  The.  Fuck.  Bill O'Reilly - papa bear himself! - is identified as a "political consultant?"  That's like getting a quote from Trump and identifying him as a business consultant.  And btw, O'Reilly had "top campaign roles" in the past two elections?  I recall nothing from 2018, and that would have been pretty big news considering he still had his show in 2014.

ETA:  Nevermind.  Turns out there is another Bill O'Reilly that is a Republican consultant.  Jumped the gun there.

Ironically, in this case I do agree with O'Reilly and the general thrust of the article that James needs to start feeding the beast more and engaging with both voters and the media - but that's hardly the point.

[HoodedCrow]

Hahaha, I asked my device to play your song:) That tree can burn, MF.

Arson, is not the best idea, snicker. O’Reilly, barf. Stephen Colbert, we need you. 

[ThinkerX]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is news to me. Last I looked global population projections are still expected to rise across this century absent something horrific. 

Couple articles in this vein, many more out there. Some cite purely or mostly economic concerns for the decline in birthrate (urbanization), others point to what seems to be a global decline in overall fertility. Worth noting that China (!) recently implemented a 'three child' policy and by outside measures, their population is still in decline or about to decline. Another article I can't locate at the moment mentioned that something on the order of half the women in the old east block had AIDS or something similar (don't know how much credence to give that article). Combined, a major global population drop by centuries end looks at least possible, though maybe not likely.

Declining birth rate in Developed Countries: A radical policy re-think is required (nih.gov)

Birthrates are declining globally – here's why it matters | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

I do have to wonder at the effects such a drop in population would have in the US, especially with climate change and whatnot.

 

[DanteGabriel]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure if it's more conscious or unconscious, but I think many white conservatives fear that once they become a minority all the horrors they've done to people of color will then be done to them. 

 

I am pretty sure it's unconscious, because they'd never admit it to themselves. They just feel it in their lizard brain parts.

That's another quality I would ascribe to Republican die-hards: an absolute unwillingness to interrogate or analyze their own thoughts. I think it's why so many of them don't buy the idea of unconscious bias. They think the only real racism is a bunch of Klansmen burning crosses. They can't admit they might have unconscious bias.

"There's not a racist bone in my body!" is a common refrain. Of course that's true. It's your brain that's the problem, dipshit.

[Larry of the Lawn]

*pedantic voice* pretty sure it's "subconsciously", unless the[y're]doing it after getting bashed on the head with a crate of Bill O'Reilly books.

[DanteGabriel]

9 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

*pedantic voice* pretty sure it's "subconsciously"

I wouldn't know, but the term I've seen in use is "unconscious bias."

 

9 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

 

unless the[y're]doing it after getting bashed on the head with a crate of Bill O'Reilly books.

If you're trying to turn me on, it's working.

[DMC]

To be even more pedantic, the most commonly used term is implicit bias - although both subconscious and unconscious work perfectly fine for me.  I guess I would say unconscious is more frequently used (and I believe the preferred term for psychologists) in the lit compared to subconscious.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

I am pretty sure it's unconscious, because they'd never admit it to themselves. They just feel it in their lizard brain parts.

Again, yes for some, no for others. I think the hardcore racists, for lack of a better term, are actively thinking about it and are willing to openly state this view, albeit there are a number of ways to dog whistle it. These people I largely write off. The larger bloc though is a bit more difficult.

Quote

That's another quality I would ascribe to Republican die-hards: an absolute unwillingness to interrogate or analyze their own thoughts. I think it's why so many of them don't buy the idea of unconscious bias. They think the only real racism is a bunch of Klansmen burning crosses. They can't admit they might have unconscious bias.

"There's not a racist bone in my body!" is a common refrain. Of course that's true. It's your brain that's the problem, dipshit.

I wonder what's the best way to parse unwillingness and the inability to recognize. My understanding has always been that conservatives tend to be really shit at extending empathy to any members that are outside of their group, and thus lack the ability to recognize what they're doing. People can say "There's not a racist bone in my body" or "I don't see color," but I don't think they really understand what they're even thinking and saying. But unlike the aforementioned people embracing their hate, these people can change. Executing that change is hard to do externally though. 

As far as terminology goes, implicit and unconscious bias largely have the same definition, but I've always understood the former to be housed within the latter. Subconscious is a better layman's term because a lot of people will confuse unconscious with someone being asleep or knocked out. I don't think the average person has even heard of implicit bias. 

Casts summon @Ormond as he would be the most qualified to more thoroughly address this.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As far as terminology goes, implicit and unconscious bias largely have the same definition, but I've always understood the former to be housed within the latter. Subconscious is a better layman's term because a lot of people will confuse unconscious with someone being a sleep or knocked out. I don't think the average person has even heard of implicit bias. 

I dunno, implicit bias got pretty famous after Harvard came out with that IAT.  I remember I was at AU ~2004 when my friends had me take it.  I also wouldn't say implicit is "housed" under unconscious, but I agree the two are pretty much interchangeable - at least within my discipline.

[Ormond]

19 hours ago, mormont said:

I think the above suggests that economic anxiety is a part of this, but not as the term is usually understood.

Usually 'economic anxiety' is thought to be about people who have little real financial security or wealth and realistically fear that they will lose what little they have and be stuck in actual poverty.

But here we see what it actually means is, people who are economically secure as a result of the existing system and feel entitled to that wealth, but are worried that minorities might now want a slice.

The 'anxiety' isn't over real poverty. It's over not being the dominant economic class any more.

Absolutely. And the pain of losing what one already has is almost always greater than the happiness of getting what one doesn't. I have always thought it very odd when people use the average income of Trump voters as an argument that they don't really have "economic anxiety," as if only the poor could have such fears. Truly poor people may actually be less "anxious" about economic changes because they have less to lose. 

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Absolutely. And the pain of losing what one already has is almost always greater than the happiness of getting what one doesn't. I have always thought it very odd when people use the average income of Trump voters as an argument that they don't really have "economic anxiety," as if only the poor could have such fears. Truly poor people may actually be less "anxious" about economic changes because they have less to lose. 

At that point the term is meaningless as an origin - literally anyone can and does feel anxious about losing what they have. 

That wasn't the way the term was being used at the time to justify things. At the time it was used - especially by some on the left - as a way to say how all this racism was actually just being poor and on the edge, and how a more progressive agenda would help them too.

And that was bullshit. 

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I dunno, implicit bias got pretty famous after Harvard came out with that IAT.  I remember I was at AU ~2004 when my friends had me take it.  I also wouldn't say implicit is "housed" under unconscious, but I agree the two are pretty much interchangeable - at least within my discipline.

Unfortunately there are some big psychometric problems with the IAT. It is really "noisy" and the consensus now seems to be that it really shouldn't be used on the individual level to decide on how unconsciously or implicitly biased one is. In particular, it's really unclear that one gets any better prediction of the behavior of individuals towards members of other groups by using IAT scores than by using more straighforward measures of bias.

 https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Unfortunately there are some big psychometric problems with the IAT.

Yep.  In fact, didn't really feel like finishing that anecdote, but the reasons my friends made me take it is because two of these friends (especially) were ardent Republicans that wanted to prove I was implicitly racist too.  My results were the opposite - if anything I was biased against white people - but my intuition even at that time was the results were faulty due to a number of factors (including the fact my reaction time was compromised by..substances).  Still didn't stop me from lording it over them though.

Anyway, my point was that Harvard IAT was pretty ubiquitous for quite awhile, wasn't commenting on its validity.