The 2020 American Political/Social Megapost
To quote Frank Costanza, "I've got a lot of problems with you people, and now you're gonna hear about it!"
I've mentioned a few times in my blog about making an "Hey America... wtf?" social issues/political post, which I'd like to mostly avoid doing from now on. Just because I don't want my silly travel journal to become too "preachy" for lack of a better word. But at the same time, I don't want to forget my though processes on current issues. So instead, with the election a month away, I thought I could have one large post to get things out of the way. After about half a year of on and off work, this is what I've come up with. It is by no means finished, and I wouldn't mind challenges to my opinions to make sure they hold water. Or if not, that's fine - it'll be a cute way to remember how I felt 10, 20 years from now.
This was originally a lot longer, but I decided to trim it down - because saying "War is bad." isn't exactly trailblazing. I've tried to tackle these as "Here's the problem - here's the solution", including citations when I can. I start with the candidates, before ending on what I think the most important issue - partisanship. If you read anything, please make it that.
Biden
It's strange starting with Biden, because I have very little to say about him - he's fine. He seems like a decent guy, based on what
even his political opponents say of him. I remember he was my #1 pick back when he ran against Obama in the 2008 Primary, so I can't imagine a great deal has changed. The only thing I can really say, is that he has a
reputation for
saying dumb things. Thankfully, he's pretty good about
apologizing for them. So while it's a negative he says them at all, at least he owns up to them, which does restore (some) of his credit.
Biden's alleged Tara Reid Sexual Assault
First let me acknowledge my bias - Biden does not seem like the type
of guy to finger-bang someone. He does come off a bit too handsy at
times, but I put that down to being raised during a very different time
(socially) than what we have now. Where women unfortunately, were less
respected. But it is something he needs to work on.
Regardless I don't personally know him, so I'll try my best to set that
aside. And it's impossible not to compare this to the Kavanaugh
hearings. I said at the time I thought Kavanaugh should be replaced -
not because he is guilty - but because I feel that this will taint every
(especially sexual) judgement he makes while on the court. For the
record, I am not saying either is guilty or innocent. We'll never know.
But his nomination could have been withdrawn, and someone else equally
qualified could have been nominated within a short period of time.
But it's not so easy with the presidency. The people decide with votes,
and it's not something you can re-do without considerable time, effort,
and money (and run afoul of some constitutional crisis when you can't do
it in time). It's up to the public to decide when they cast their vote,
or don't. But the allegations need to be taken seriously, because they
are serious. The unfortunate truth though, is that we will never know
the answer. In the end, as more facts come out, people will mentally
come up with some sort of probability that he did those things or not.
And will ask themselves "Am I willing to vote for someone with a 20%
chance of being a sexual predator? 80%?" I don't have the answer for
you. And I stand by your decision to vote/not vote. However, if this is
your only criterion, that rings hollow considering the alternate choice. Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by 24 25 26 women. He cheated on
his wife with and paid off a porn actress fairly recently, "grab 'em by
the pussy", etc. If you're assigning probability, his must be
significantly higher. If this is the deciding factor in your vote, I'd
expect a vote for a third party candidate if you're being honest with
yourself.
Trump being Trump
#1: Golfing during the outbreak, despite him criticizing Obama for golfing so much
I'm fine with this, but less fine with his past criticism. I'm willing
to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially at the start of
this. If someone were to say "We didn't do as well as we would have
liked, we can do better, and here's how we're changing to do better.",
well then, props to you. Instead Trump doubles down on how everything
has been great the whole time, despite reality disagreeing.
But on golf itself, it's fine. We all need time off, and this is his
hobby. Stepping away from problems temporarily can rude stress, and can
give you a fresh perspective on how to solve them. But in response to
the criticism he's receiving, and how it sounds hypocritical after
criticizing Obama for it, I would expect a response more along the lines
of "You know, I was wrong to say that. I didn't understand all the
realities of being the president until I was one. While I stand by my
opinion that Obama could have done things better, we all deserve time
off."
I don't see that happening, but I'm hoping he will surprise me.
#2: Trump's alleged comments on dead soldiers being "suckers" and "losers"
Except
for the most egregious examples, speaking ill of dead veterans tends to
be in poor form. While I am not really patriotic at all, working on the
assumption that the reports are true, this would bring down my opinion of Trump a
bit. And it is not completely out of character for him, having called
John McCain a "loser" for being captured. (which, was also pretty
terrible, and I think there should have been much more pushback on him
saying that).
However, this was published in The Atlantic, which does
lean left.
But these are still just anecdotal accounts, which I don't put a lot of
credit in. Four people have confirmed the reports, which is not
nothing. I don't really know the exact number it would need to reach for
me to believe it was true, but in my opinion, it's nearly there, but not yet. Of
course, the best thing would be evidence, and I don't see that popping
up. But you never know.
#3: "White Power" Video Tweet
Back in June Trump tweeted a video from a community of, unfortunately, a bunch of really hateful
people yelling at each other. Watching this made me really sad, because the biggest tragedy is how much disdain people can have for another, just because they believe something different than them.
But in
the video, a Trump protestor is chanting (I think), "Racist, racist!"
Then another person in support of Trump yells some indistinguishable
things,
finishing with "Yeah, you got it, white power!". Trump deleted the
tweet, and a spokesperson said that he "did not hear the one statement
made in the video." I would like to give him the benefit of the
doubt, but this must be false. It is quite clear, and emphasized with
the protestor repeating it to prove his point: "There ya
go, 'White power' - you hear that?" The spokesperson might as well have
said "The President only watched the first few seconds of the video.",
which seems much more truthful. And to Trump's credit, he did remove it,
which is the first step. But he has yet to apologize, and now months
later, I don't expect he will. In short, this brought down my overall
opinion of him a
fair bit.
#4: Downplaying COVID-19
I
think people are really upset over this, because of what they have had
to endure the past several months. But I think we need to put this in
context -
the remarks
were made on February 7th. This is about a week after I heard about it,
the guy living a few hours away from ground zero. I can understand his
attitude of not wanting to cause a panic. And in isolation, I have no
issue with what he said to Bob Woodward.
However,
he did more than downplay it, he outright denied it. And one could
argue that the cold hard truth is better than playing it cool. I think
both responses are viable, and maybe he picked the wrong one here. But I
think his attitude in February was similar to the rest of America's -
this is a "them" problem I need not really concern myself with. And so I
can't really fault him too much for the February comments. But I
certainly can fault him with his lackluster response, given what he
knew.
#5: "Very fine people on both sides"
I think everyone is quite familiar with this quote already.
Heck, Biden even cited it as a reason he decided to run. But I think if you look at this quote in
full context, things are not so cut and dry. And honestly, Trump rambles a lot, so it's hard to see exactly what he was talking about here. But in that same press conference, he says, "I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch." And he is actually telling the truth. He
has condemned white supremacists before.
So to add some more context, later he said "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides." and "You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down
of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park
from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Is it the best way of presenting this? No, it's honestly pretty bad. In general, he has a weird way of not directly coming out and saying "Nazis are bad." when all the cameras are on him. He also did it at the first debate. But at the same time, if I was a non-racist person who is a big fan of Civil War history, I also would not want to be lumped in with white supremacists.
In short - this is a strawman argument. He didn't say Nazis are fine people. But he also didn't do himself any favors but not explicitly stating otherwise. (unless that was his intention, but that's another can of worms).
#6: "Saving MBS's ass"
Of all the things Trump has done, I feel
this is the most terrible. There is
no mincing words: he claims to have used his position to protect a murderer in exchange
for money. I am not so naive to think the world doesn't have bad
people, and some difficult and nasty things need to be done. But this is
just completely indefensible. This alone would sink any presidency, as
it well should. But for Trump, it's just another log on the fire. The
few positive things I have said about him, or "giving him the benefit of
the doubt", are overshadowed by this. Truly despicable.
#7: "Science should not stay in the way of opening schools"
There is so much wrong with
this statement,
I have to assume they misspoke. Otherwise I would suggest Trump or his
spokesperson attend school again, as they appear to not understand the
meaning of "science".
#8: CBS's Interview with Trump
I don't have too much to say about this interview, except
one moment
that really took me by surprise. The questions was "Why are African
Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country?"
He had a very combative tone to say that that's a terrible question,
which I disagree with. But for his response, he said that white people
are killed too. So let me understand this - the response to "Police are killing black people."
is "No, the police are killing everyone."? This is an insane argument, and
as head of government, you are in charge of this. I would like to see
you take responsibility and outline how to solve it.
#9: Trump's COVID-19 Executive Orders
Trump
signed a series of executive orders on COVID relief while debates were
ongoing in Congress. He phrased it as "Democrats were holding things
up", which is unfortunately partisan nonsense. There is disagreement on what is necessary for sure, but then by definition one party shares half the blame. True to character, Democrats want more aid and
Republicans want less. As in the CARES Act, I am sure eventually they'll
come to a tenuous agreement.
Three of the executive orders (this, this, and this)
I am totally fine with and in fact, supportive of. To be honest,
they're pretty toothless. Like, the one on halting evictions states
"...shall consider whether any measures temporarily halting
residential
evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably
necessary". And there is a lot of back and forth on if these actions are
constitutionally possible. I am not qualified to weigh in on that, but of course Trump says they are and Democrats say they're not. But also for
Democrats to say these orders are not providing real relief is in bad
faith. No, they're not. But he's also not a dictator, and this is the
limit (or even exceeding the limit) of what he can do. So even if it's a
token amount of help, it's better than nothing.
This
one, deferring Payroll Tax, is silly at best and worrying at worst. It
doesn't really do anything since companies will need to pay the tax in
one lump sum later. While this will be challenged in court, he says
he'll make payroll tax cuts permanent if he's re-elected. Payroll taxes
fund Social Security, an institution already in trouble. So he's going
to be stuck either going back on his promise or massively shaking up the
tax code, which seems unlikely. Then again if I was being selfish I
would say "go for it dude", because I am expecting to get screwed on
social security anyway.
#10: Axios's Trump Interview
This is my favorite interview
of Trump, and just reaffirms my opinion that foreign journalists do a
considerably better job than American ones. So props to Jonathan Swan.
Something he did, that I frustratingly never see in American media, is
that Jonathan doesn't let him change the topic. Trump is really good at
turning questions into rants about how great he is doing, but Jonathan
disarms him with responding to his flattery, and then turning him back
to the question. Trump often doesn't completely answer the question, but
comes closer than pretty much any other interview so far. And credit to
Trump, he comes across pretty well when he does
answer, with a few notable exceptions. Overall, I learned a lot from
this interview, I feel that it was quite fair, and I hope sets a
precedent.
Trump (on COVID-19 deaths): "It is what it is."
He
gets a lot of flack for this statement in particular, but I think
people are reading too much into it. It's just a transition into another
sentence.
Trump: "It's under control as much as you can control it."
I
believe that's actually fairly truthful, and I'd only add ..."in the
United States" to make it completely truthful. The President does have a
lot of power yes, but they are not dictators. I sincerely wish they had
stronger emergency powers during a public health crisis, but I can
understand the concerns with overreach that may entail. He does push
that praise/blame onto the governors, which is a fair point and
emphasizes two approaches to government - local power or federal power. I
think both are viable approaches, but in the absence of a state border
control, I think federal power is more appropriate in this case.
However, he has a lot of soft control, and it
disappoints me he never tapped into that.
Trump: "It should have been stopped by China."
Bro.
They quarantined an entire province. Like, mistakes were made, and I think there is room to criticize. But dude, few
countries in the world could have gone to the herculean efforts they did
to control it. America couldn't have done 5% of what they did. This opinion piece
sums up how I feel pretty well. If people legitimately felt this way,
and we're not just using this as an excuse to yell "China bad", where was
all the hate towards Mexico during Swine Flu?
Jonathan: "By what date will Americans have the same-day testing you have in the White House."
This
is my least favorite question in the interview, and I'd phrase it more
as "In the White House, you have same day testing that many American's
don't have. What is the timeline for that to be rolled out nationwide?"
But regardless, Trump cannot set an exact date, so it's a silly
question. While he's certainly in the loop, he's not the CEO of the
pharma companies. Still, the overall spirit of the question is good,
which Trump actually does a good job of answering with "fairly soon",
but doesn't want to set a date because he could be criticized if it's
late. If Jonathan had reworded the question as I had said, he could have
been more easily pushed to give a rough timeline.
Trump: "You can test too much."
In the current context this is an idiotic statement. Over-testing is a thing, but the US isn't anywhere close to that. Not to mention that a significant portion of the US's testing is fairly useless. To Trump's credit, he acknowledges that shortcoming. He doesn't really say specifically how he's going to fix it though.
Jonathan: "You're looking at death as a proportion of cases. I'm looking at death as a proportion of population."
Trump's
figures aren't nothing. Death as a proportion of cases can show
inadequacies in the medical system, as well as how effective the country
is at testing the general population. But I agree with Jonathan, at the
end of the day the important thing here is death rate per population.
For the obvious reason is that we want the least number of infections
and deaths, period. But also because once you know the expected death
rate of the virus, you have the necessary information to make some very
tough decisions.
Trump: "You can't do that."
Jonathan: "Why can't I do that?"
Amazing,
simple quote that more journalists should adopt. Not because it's
funny, but because then politicians need to defend their position.
Trump: "Nuclear proliferation is a much bigger problem than global warming."
I don't agree or disagree with this statement, but I think he deserves some credit for working on this issue.
Trump (on Ghislane Maxwell): "I wish her well."
He
again gets a lot of criticism for this statement. It's... fine. I would
choose different words, but he goes onto explain that essentially, he
hopes she doesn't die in jail like Epstein. I think we can all agree
with that sentiment.
Trump: "I've done more for the black community except for Abraham Lincoln."
O_O
#11: Trump's Social Media "Censorship"
As a quick reminder, Trump issued an executive order that said
social media companies shouldn't be immune from what their users say if they fact check their users
(although at time of writing, it remains to be seen how/if this is
implemented). This is an issue I fall on both sides of. On the one hand,
he has a habit of actively promoting objectively false things - and in
the context of COVID-19, this is extremely dangerous that can (
and has)
led to deaths. When it comes from an authority figure like the
president, it cannot be easily dismissed as the ramblings of some insane
person. His words carry weight, more to some than others, but
regardless he and future presidents need to responsible with them. He
has not been in my opinion, so in some ways I feel this action from
Twitter is justified.
On the other hand, I feel this sets a dangerous precedent. I don't much
care for the "slippery slope" argument, because we can choose where to
limit things or not. But I think it is proving to us that these
technology companies have a lot of power to influence the public
discourse in a way that rivals or exceeds traditional media, with few
checks and balances. Is Facebook a media company now? Maybe so, and in
10 years "FNN" will be on in every airport. But if so, they would be
held to a different standard. As it stands, they have absolute power to
control what is blocked behind a "click here to proceed" wall, as well
as potentially blocking things completely that we will never see - and
the only saving grace being that the company is so large, I would hope a
whistleblower would alert us.
But that is a precarious situation to be in. Is the solution more
legislation? Oversight? Or are things okay the way they are? I'm
honestly not sure, but as it stands I'm at a cautious "wait and see".
#12: Trump's Impeachment
Strap in for this one, it's a long walk. Surprisingly, I don't think he
should have been impeached (initially). The whole "We'd like you to do
us a favor though..." is pretty flimsy argument to stand on. As in,
"This one sentence now disqualifies you from being president any
longer." (still, incredibly stupid, corrupt, idiotic, distasteful)
However, as the statement (used to) go, "It's not the crime, it's the
coverup." His flagrant disregard for any investigations by Congress,
witness intimidation, and trying his best to hamper the process is
impeachment worthy, IMO. The whole situation really opened my eyes to
how Congress A) does not nearly have the power it's made out to have,
and B) it doesn't matter if you have 49% or 1%, the majority is really
what matters. Trump has set a precedent the President has the power to
do A, B, and C now, and that power is not going away. So while it will
benefit him in the short term, when the pendulum swings the other way,
the opposition will have that power.
I guess I should try and see the silver lining that presidents having more power is sort of okay. I am trending towards the opinion that America's government
is too gridlocked to accomplish what it needs to do, and handing power
to one person can help push agendas along. Now ideally, I'd hope those
agendas are not as diametrically opposed as they are now, and there would be proper checks and balances to corruption. But when we
have so many problems than need resolved, I support doing something as
opposed to nothing. So thanks, Trump. Your selfishness may have made
that easier for your successors. I hope the decisions you make with the
time you have are good ones.
#13: Trump's Tax Returns
He's an American citizen. There is no law regarding this, just a
tradition. So he has the right to keep that private. You have the right
to not vote for him because of it. Just like what I wrote about the Tara
Reade sexual assault allegations, you need to make a mental evaluation
here. "It's possible that these documents would show the potential
president is involved in some shady stuff. What percentage of risk do I
accept of that with my vote?" I don't have the answer for you. But as
long as you think about it rationally, I accept whatever decision you
come to.
In the future, I think financial conflicts of interest are a concern to
the American people, but maybe not specifics. Perhaps a compromise here
could be that the IRS investigates and publicly clears/makes
recommendations to the nominees. I realize this is not a perfect
solution, as the IRS is under the previous administration. But the IRS
is pretty apolitical, and I haven't seen anyone else suggest this, so I
wouldn't mind being challenged on it.
UPDATE: Whoops! Who would've guessed, turns out there's a reason he didn't want his taxes released. I mean, this is really bad. Honestly, I can't fault him too much for only paying $750. He took advantage of the laws that were there. I can fault him for being a hypocrite though.
The more concerning thing to me is his 400k debt that will come due in his possible second term. This is a giant conflict of interest, especially if it is owed to foreign countries. I feel this would need to be investigated immediately, because if it is that bad, I'd hope people would assume that disqualifies someone from holding such a high level office.
#14: Deploying Federal Troops Deployed to Cities
This
really puzzles me, because this is contrast to the general Republican
stance issue emphasizing government on a local level. But
turning to the riots themselves, like most issues, things are not all
black and white. Not everyone is wearing beads, walking around singing
"Give peace a chance.", but at the same time ANTIFA shock troopers are
not being deployed. The crowds are large enough that you can honestly
pick whatever narrative you want. I think this just underscores how
important it is to get your news from a variety of sources, and even some unconventional ones from time to time.
#15: "It [COVID-19] affects virtually nobody."
Trump is speaking in
context of the young here, which makes this more accurate. The sentence before, he was talking about how young people have a great immune system, and the sentence after to open the schools. Trump is already ridiculous enough, you don't need to conjure up any more examples.
Anti-Intellectualism
Just to define terms here, in my context this might as well be called "anti-school". I don't see many people insisting the plumber doesn't know anything about water because they had fancy-schmancy plumber training. But I've definitely noticed the anti-intellectual voices get louder as of recently, which I admit puts me at a bit of a loss for words. At a surface level, people will say "Wow, you studied X. You must know a lot about it." And the answer is yes, they do. Probably. At least more than people who did not get a degree in X. So I am inclined to listen to them, and put stock in what they say.
But at the same time, I don't want to give the impression experts are infallible. They should be challenged with sound arguments, supported by evidence when possible. Sadly, many choose to shift the burden of proof to impossible to prove conspiracy theories. For example, you could say "During 9/11, this and this looked suspicious." And then you can research and find the answers. But making a conclusion that "9/11 was an inside job." without evidence is silly, because without evidence it is impossible to prove. So yes, be skeptical.
But don't be irrational. Follow the data. Please support your local
statisticians.
For fixing this, unfortunately I feel it's easy to say and hard to do - education. We need to hold students accountable to back up their claims, and challenge them along the way. (And ya know, stop tying education to the property taxes of the area the school is in) It's not easy, and not fast. But I'd like to see a trend towards that. Later I have an entry about education reform which I think would be a good start. In the meantime, I find a helpful question is "What would convince you?" If they tell you something unreasonable, you could point out that is impossible to prove/disprove. I'd encourage them to give it another go, or at least encourage them to do their own research. If they give you something concrete, present that evidence in the most non-smug way possible. Shift the "blame" away from them, and empathize how you can understand they've come to the conclusions they have. But as a reasonable person, I'm sure they would be willing to look at other points of view.
Anti-Maskers
This is surprisingly nuanced.
If you are looking at this from a macro standpoint, the argument is foolish. The research has quite definitively shown that masks save lives. Maybe not your life, but the lives of others. And they may not be 100% effective, but what is in life? If a seatbelt will only save your life in 75% of accidents, wouldn't you still wear it? I'd like to minimize suffering wherever possible. So I'm of the opinion of forced/compelled mask wearing.
However, this begs the question, "Where does your personal freedom end?" Some would say where it interferes with another's, and I'd usually agree with that. We legislate against personal freedoms all the time, and people seem to be cool with it. We have to wear pants in public. We have to wear seatbelts in our car. Even though these things affect only us. So I think masks are a pretty silly hill to die on, like an arbitrary line that has been drawn. I think a more effective argument is "I don't believe the data about masks/COVID-19." Alright. This is a different, unfortunately pervasive issue about trusting science, and I don't think one statement could convince you otherwise. But it's at least a coherent argument, given the initial lack of clear answers from the WHO/CDC. Another one, maybe after much reflecting and honesty, "I don't want to wear a mask because it makes me look weak/complicit/unappealing." Again, this argument is more coherent. I'd argue that being dead is the most weak/unappealing you can be. And if you'd like to stay not dead, I'd hope you would follow the golden rule and treat others as you expect to be treated. Regardless of all of these arguments, let's consider the two choices - you either wear a mask or don't. The worst case scenario is that you are slightly inconvenienced. The best case scenario is that you save a life. If you're seriously equating your inconvenience with a life saved, I cannot understand your morals.
In the end though, this still is all your choice. If you believe a business has the freedom to not bake a cake for a gay couple, they have the right to refuse you entry based on your lack of mask. You can choose to go to a business which will allow you to shop there, or to take this argument to the extreme, go live in a forest and live off the land. So yes, you do have the freedom to not wear a mask and set your own rules on your property. But you cannot expect all others to agree.
As to how we solve this, I'm not sure we can this time around, at least in the US. Most of the rest of the world is firmly onboard with masks, because the data and advice has been consistent from the beginning. But the US was a bit wishy-washy at first, and changing now is going to mean people have to admit they're wrong. For many, that's a hard pill to swallow. I think the best way for the time being is to give people a moral "out". Shift blame off of them, and onto yourself. something along the lines of "I understand how you made your decision. You used the best advice available at the time. We were wrong initially, but now we have better information."
Climate Change
Is it really necessary for me to pull sources on this? I understand it's
a big and complex issue, but for sake of simplicity let's consider the
extremes of two axises: 1) Climate change is real, or it's not. 2) We
can do something, or not. If we do something, we either avoid worldwide
disaster or improve air and water quality. (Both sound pretty good!). If
we don't do something, we either maintain the status quo or billions
potentially die (Both sound pretty bad!)
So I'm firmly in the "do something" camp. Given the urgency, I'm also in
the "do something quickly" camp. And there is an argument to be made
that the US is no longer the world's #1 polluter, even per capita. But
this bickering is a bit pointless, since we're all on this Earth
together. So if we want to take the moral high ground and encourage
people to stop polluting, how about we get our act together and show how
serious we are about it, and even provide support to those willing. It
reminds me a lot of a group project in school. In the end, one person
does most of the work. But if failure means massive destruction, I'm
will to drag the lazy butts along.
Immigration
This is one of the most "shades of grey" issue I think America has right
now, or maybe my most "right" viewpoint. The two sides have
unfortunately characterized the other as being for completely closed or
completely open borders, which is disappointing. I think everyone is in favor of
eliminating illegal immigration. The question is if that immigration
should just not be there, or convert it to legal immigration.
For those who oppose most immigration, I have to wonder if their
argument is economic or xenophobic. While nobody would ever admit it, if
it's xenophobic, well, I don't feel you are a nice person. Of course I
say this as a current immigrant, but you have to acknowledge how
hypocritical it is to be opposed to immigration, unless you're Native
American. I've heard the statement "Nobody wants to be a minority in
their own country." Which, I also say as a minority in my current
country, "Why not?" Unless you feel minorities are not treated fairly.
If it's economic, I think you have a better argument, as the data I've
seen is mixed or complicated if it's a net plus or minus. I honestly
don't know the answer. But I think this is a discussion worth having,
because this is something that affects everyone living in the US, legal
or not. In general, I'd say "Does the cost of policing it outweigh the
the economic benefit?" These are nuanced and difficult questions. But I
would like to base my decision on data.
In the end, nobody wants to be an illegal immigrant. They have chosen
this path because being an illegal in America is better than being legal
in wherever they previously were. So when people who say "Come here
legally!", I hope they take the time to reflect on how little compassion
that statement has, coupled with an understanding of how
difficult/impossible it is to come legally. I'd tepidly be in favor of
increasing border security while making the legal option more
feasible/attractive. While the vast majority of illegal immigrants come legally and overstay their visa, if you're so dead set on building a
wall, lets put solar panels on top of it. I think that'd be a good
compromise.
Abortion
This is something almost silly to debate, because this is an issue that
nobody will change their mind on. The crux of the issue is when is a
fetus a human life. There is no binary answer for that, and never will
be.
But this is also a great opportunity to cut through partisanship. Something people often forget, is that everyone wants fewer abortions. So, how do we solve this? Well, passing laws restricting abortion appears to not be the solution, as paradoxically that can increase the number of abortions. But it seems a good solution is to give people access to contraceptives. You may think the government shouldn't be in the role of paying for
contraceptives, which is a fair argument. But you can certainly work to
not discourage them with sex education or long lasting contraceptives. And while important, chest thumping about a "woman's right to choose", or "protecting the unborn" doesn't really solve anything. Instead, I'd like to see conversations start with "Hey friend, we both want the same result here - let's put our heads together to figure out how to get there."
UPDATE
Yuh oh. Well, the Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v Wade, making abortion illegal in about half of the country. Where to begin.... first, I don't even have a ballpark of what abortion looks like in the US, so lets very roughly math things out. I'm going to be getting some rough numbers and making assumptions, but I'd like to get my head around things by an order of magnitude. A no-effort Google says there were about 600k abortions in 2016. As a rough assumption a bit less than half of the country, population-wise, is affected by this ruling, so let's say 200k. What percentage of those women will travel to other states, use a second form of contraception to be extra safe, or have illegal abortions? The final number doesn't really matter, but I'm going to guess based on nothing and say, 75%. Which leaves 50k new babies a year.
If possible, lets set the moral question aside and focus on those 50k. Why do people get abortions? Because they don't want a kid, of course. Unmarried women are the overwhelming majority, at 86%. I'm not saying you have to be married to provide a good environment for children. However, I think it is fair to say that decent portion of those women would not have a stable partner to help raise their child. It's tough times in the US even with 2 salaries going to raise a child, so 1 is really tough. That means more welfare and/or an overworked single mother.
I realize these are big generalizations, and you can always find an exception to back up whatever point you want. But, I think that even with the bag-of-an-envelope math calculations, it is fair to say that a not insignificant portion of those 50k children will grow up in poverty. Poverty and crime do go together, so umm... that's not great.
And of course, I haven't even talked about the health of the mother. On a strange personal hypothetical, if I got pregnant, you can be absolutely sure I would abort it. Because I do not want kids, and laws be damned, I would find a way. Yeah, so there is some legal punishment - if that legal punishment is less than 18 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'm going with abortion. Then again, I have the financial means to do that. Fortunately, there are many states where abortion is still legal, so except for the deep south, there's usually a clinic a bus ride away. And I hope there is support for a charitable system to help those in need. Not because I want to see more babies aborted - just the opposite. As I said earlier, everyone is in favor of fewer abortions, which I think many people seem to forget. But I agree in harm reduction strategies, such as Portugal's drug policy. If you are pro-life, than a mother's life is equally valuable as a baby's. I would rather a mother go somewhere with a licensed doctor than some fly-by-night operation. Which, again, as someone who does not want kids, I would absolutely risk my life to do. So that presents abortion opponents with an uncomfortable choice - someone will, 100% get an abortion. Do you want them to do it safely, and align with your compassion? Or unsafely, which means you need to on paper, tacitly support abortion?
I haven't even gotten into bodily autonomy, but this is getting long enough, so having said all that, I'm going to switch gears and say that this ruling is not as bad as people make it out to be, or more accurately, I feel it is incorrectly characterized. I mean, in the short team, yeah. It's not great. However the ruling does not make abortion illegal - it makes it possible to be illegal. I know it's a subtle difference than matters little to someone right now, today, but the court thinks this should be up to the states. I don't disagree that is a way to govern. (Although, I would like to see issues like access to medical care be as widespread as possible.) But it does put the control back in your hands, in a way that your vote has more impact. In a perverse example, I would not like to see any state reestablish slavery, because we determined that is morally greater than any one state. But what's done is done. Historically, the left's voter turnout in local elections is absolutely terrible. I hope this galvanizes them to participate more, because if you're going to walk into a polling location to legalize abortion, you might as well also tick the box for other candidates.
As far as Trump's three supreme court nominees being charged for perjury? I'm hesitant to do that unless it's really open and shut. I think Kavanaugh at least said something like "Roe v Wade is settled". That doesn't mean he was opposed to it not being overturned. I'd have to look through all 3 confirmation hearings, which I'd rather not do. But if someone would like to quote a sentence that is like "I will not overturn Roe v Wade.", then I think you may have a case. As we've learned with all of the stuff with Trump, Congress apparently does not have the power to bring legal justice to people that they do on paper. I think that's a shame, because why have laws if they're not enforced?
However, if you believe that abortion is murder, by even tacitly supporting it, all these arguments don't mean as much to you. And while I do not agree with that position, I do understand it. For the sake of argument, let's again equate abortion to slavery. It's incredibly immoral and should be opposed at all costs. "Leaving it up to the states" is how we got a civil war, after all. So, if you think this way, I don't think any amount of debate is going to convince anyone otherwise. Which then, goes back to my original point. We are all trying to get to the point of fewer abortions. Let's start from that position, and focus on data-driven solutions to achieve that.
Voter by Mail Fraud / Voter ID
Many, many, many, many, many studies have found this to not be an issue. If you feel otherwise, I legitimately want to see the data that supports your opinion. The thing is, voter fraud doesn't really scale up to 350-million people levels. There is only so much one person can do, and to seriously change an election, you need to have many, many people working towards that goal. And the more people you involve, the more chance your scheme has to fall apart or get found out.
There is some credibility to the argument that someone could vote twice - by mail and in person. The Carter-Baker report did find that was a distinct possibility, given the messy situation of every county having its own process for voting. In effect, the country is running elections with 3000-some separate voting systems, which is sort of amazing it even works at all. In short, the report didn't conclude vote fraud happens, more that it identified gaps that would allow it to happen. But as the previous citations show, it's going to take quite an effort to convince people to risk a federal crime (with a paper trail no less) only to give their preferred candidate a single extra vote.
Despite this, some are pushing for Voter ID. I am okay with this in theory, but less about how the Republicans want to implement it. As it stands, it is sort of a poll tax, which is illegal. Perhaps a compromise here would be to make IDs free to obtain - then I'd be more onboard. That still doesn't really help homeless people though, and as citizens they deserve a vote. I suppose you could have a procedure in place, like using a thumbprint or something instead.
In the end, this is a big fuss for, again, a problem that doesn't really exist. I think you could design it to be pretty close to fair if you wanted to, but I also think we could use our resources on something more pressing.
Guns
This is a tough issue, and an opinion I don't feel I can back up with data. However after a lot of reflection, I think guns should be significantly harder to obtain. Yes, I know it is in the Bill of Rights. Guns are a big part of American culture. But it is designed to be changed - I mean, it's literally called an Amendment.
And growing up, I was fine with guns. It wasn't a hobby I often indulged in, but I could understand why they had appeal and I enjoyed my time shooting them. But as violent incidents with guns became more and more common, I have come to the conclusion "Alright. We're not responsible enough to have this anymore." Some people will disagree with me, and that's okay. But I think about it like speed limits on roads - I trust a NASCAR racer to be skilled enough to drive 100 mph on a highway. I don't trust most people to have the same ability. So we set reasonable speed limits, even if that feels like "babying" those who can handle it. But that's just a responsibility we need to pay as a society to be safe.
Counter arguments could be, "Then only outlaws will have guns." True. The effects will not be fully felt within my lifetime, most likely. Guns 100, 200 years old can still be functional. But as demand falls, prices will rise, keeping them out of more hands. And I'd be in favor of a gun buyback to destroy them and reduce the supply. Or "I live in the countryside, it would take an hour for police to get to my place." First of all, what criminals are you attracting? But someone in such a rural area I would imagine, would have a gun in case of bears, wolves, or whatnot. If I am a criminal looking to rob someone, I'm not going to go somewhere where I'm more likely to get shot. And there is also a big concern of 3D printing where everyday folks can make a gun in their living room. And I don't have an answer to that, other than waiting and seeing how it pans out.
I don't see a good way to implement this, because using other countries like Australia or Switzerland as examples aren't great comparisons - their cultures are so different. However, I would like to see an Australia-ish buyback program, or a tax to discourage them.
Iran
It's hard to think of a country that the US has been more shitty to than Iran. I mean, let's go back to when the US shot down an Iranian passenger jet and did very little to atone for that. More recently, Trump backed out of the nuclear deal, with no reason that I can think of. The information I've seen was that Iran was following the rules. (Please point me to reputable sources that say otherwise) His actions have reinforced the idea that the US is not to be trusted.
I'm not saying that Iran is without fault. They've also been very unkind in their anti-Isreali rhetoric and funding of very violent people. But if we want to build trust around the world (which I'm in favor of), we need to treat people fairly, even if we disagree with them. I feel the US has not been fair. And rebuilding that trust and partnership would go a long way to convincing them to dial back on some of the less-good things their government has pushed for, while encouraging the good stuff.
Privacy
Something very few people seem to talk about nowadays is privacy, especially in the digital world. I am saying this as a former tech person - you probably need to be more concerned with this than you are. I am not saying you should delete Facebook and use a flip-phone. But you should be aware of what companies have on you, and decide if you are okay with that. You can start by requesting a copy of your data from Google, Facebook, etc.. I really would like to encourage you to do this, because what is in there will probably shock you (I've included links below). This is stalker level stuff. And yeah, Zuckerburg is not going to show up to your house, but would you be comfortable with random strangers knowing that much about you? Or, my biggest worry, if it is sold/hacked to someone else with much worse intentions?
I think Snowden said it really well with "Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
Please. Opt Out of (most) browser tracking. Ditch Chrome for a more privacy-focused browser. Use Extensions to protect yourself. Download and look at the data you are sharing - I am positive you will change your privacy settings afterward.
Prison Reform
This is something that makes me more sad than concerned. At some point along the way in designing prisons, we really focused on the part where we sequester violent people away from society. However, it seems we've forgotten on the part where we get those people back into society. Simply put, every day someone is in prison is draining the economy. And then when they get out, they learn it's really difficult to get a job, let alone a decent paying one, because of the stigma. And I get that. Nobody wants to hire a daycare worker who has committed murder. But man, why can't that reformed murderer be a day trader or something? And it's been harped on to death, but why are we locking up non-violent people? Why do we need to sequester them from society if they pose no risk? I'm not saying they get off without punishment, but having them contributing to society is a net benefit for everyone. Really, I'd like to see the stigma change. That we treat convicts similar to a child that messed up and got caught. Yes, you have to accept your punishment. But it can be a learning opportunity, one that hopefully makes you better on the other side. In practical terms, I'd like to see convicts given skills training and/or community college for free. And I'd like to see society in general, become more accepting to those who made mistakes, especially non-violent ones. It's clear that we have a lot of work to do there.
Policing
Unfortunately there is a lot to say on this.
I don't even know how to begin unraveling systematic racism in a few paragraphs. And as a white person who has hardly any experience with racism, and certainly not in America, my words are pretty hollow. But things have really come to a fever pitch with the death of George Floyd. And this is in the backdrop of many, many other people who have died by the hands of the police.
And I just want to step back one sec before diving in - the people who have been in the news lately, they are all black. But I don't want to forget about others, including white people, who are also victim to police brutality. And I have to wonder, do I not hear about other races due to it just not happening as much, or because of systemic racism? I think everyone is for effective and moral policing, regardless of race.
But the data has shown that it happens significantly more often to black people, which is obviously terrible. I don't have much to say about that, other than it is immensely disappointing, and we obviously need to take steps to make sure that we (humans) learn from our mistakes to prevent this senseless tragedy(ies) from happening again. It's such a ridiculous thing, when you think about it - that someone's skin color makes us think A B or C about them. Why is it not the same with hair or eye color? Racism is a societal cancer, and people who actively promote it have no place in the world.
But a lot of the focus recently has been on rioting recently, so I feel I should address it. This is a complicated issue. Because while rioting gets people to pay attention (perhaps a net positive), on a personal level I despise violence from any source, so it actively pushes me away from supporting the cause. Let's say for example that on your commute to work, there is a black person on the corner telling people "Blacks are oppressed in this country." Maybe the first day you pay attention, but then you pay them no mind - you get used to it, and it's easy to tune it out. Then one day, they stop you, say "Blacks are oppressed in this country.", and then throw a brick at a car. You will definitely pay attention. And who knows, you'll probably sign their petition. But stepping aside for a moment, what about this car you smashed? Do you honestly think the owner will have a better opinion of your movement now? And turning back to you, has this person really convinced you through fear? And I'm not discounting fear, I think fear can be a way to govern. To be honest, I find a lot of the Republican platform is based on fear. However, I think if you want genuine change, beyond surface level, you have to win hearts and minds. Martin Luther King Jr. felt the same.
And I should definitely mention the amazing people who are following in the wake of the protestors, and cleaning up after them. This just goes to show that in any large movement, there can be a lot of different opinions. And we should not be quick to cherry pick or characterize an entire group, especially in its early stage, by the actions that fit our narrative. In that vein, we cannot judge the most violent protestors without equally judging the most violent of police.
But my disapproval for this rioting behavior is far less than my disgust at what happens to minorities in the first place at the hands of the police. I think it was Kennedy that said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Of course, when people seek to criticize, or diminish peaceful black protests, or don't take the protests seriously, it's inevitable this will happen. But then I mean, the police are showing the black community "The law is not the same for you", so why should they respect the law? There is a meme that talks about this, that people had a problem when others kneeled during the National Anthem, so what option do they have? What is the correct way to protest? I think kneeling during the National Anthem is the way to protest. I think marching outside police departments, police administrators' homes, the FBI, talking about it online, wearing clothes/symbols in solidarity, especially encouraging voting for people who stand up against racism, denouncing those who give your movement a bad name, being loud, and anything else that does not actively cause harm to individuals are also good ideas. And if you get arrested for peacefully protesting, you show the world how you are better than the police, and cause others to be sympathetic to your cause. And when people tell you that your peaceful protests are not the correct way, you be the bigger person and calmly tell them to take a hike. This is not easy or straightforward. It is also long overdue. And I acknowledge this is very easy for someone in my position to say. But some human beings are assholes, and assholes have a vote as well. I know people want justice to be handed down to the police officers. And maybe it eventually will. But I'd rather have a slow moving, (more) accurate system than one that moves too swiftly and sometimes gets it wrong.
How do we solve it? I would defer to people who have more experience than me. Some people point to "Defund the Police" with Camden, New Jersey as an example. While it seems better, it does not seem to be the silver bullet (pardon the pun) people are making it out to be. The same article points to a method in Los Angeles where stationing unarmed officers has shown promise. There is also some credence to reducing the power of police unions, and building trust within marginalized communities. But as this is out of my wheelhouse, I'm going to be quiet and listen for a while.
Controversial Public Statues / Figures
Somewhat related to the previous position. There's been a move recently against Confederate statues, but I'll include anything controversial, such as Columbus.
The argument against their removal is usually "This is a part of history" and should not be forgotten. I get that point of view, and honestly I think it's a pretty solid argument. However, I have to wonder if that really is what you believe, and if it is being used as a "reverse strawman" sort of situation. If you do truly believe it, I would expect you also support history classes and libraries. But I think we decide pretty frequently on not putting up statues about our history that we find shameful. Like, you don't see any statues about Japanese Internment Camps during World War 2. Because that would be hurtful - not only to everyone being complicit in it, but especially to Japanese. So we don't do it.
Some would equate their removal with censorship, which I strongly disagree with. It is not censorship. You can go to a museum, you can read stuff online - and that information is not, and should not, be hidden. Just because it is not displayed publicly does not mean it is restricted. I won't cry censorship if you take down a statue of Mister Rogers (I will just be disappointed). It doesn't erase his legacy, it's just not a constant reminder of it you see every day. Another argument may be something like "No one's past is squeaky clean, you will always find fault in someone - yes Columbus did horrible things to the natives, but he also did an amazing thing by rediscovering the Americas." Which I think is the best argument one can make to keep them up, because this argument has caused me to be conflicted. For example, I think very few would object to a statue of George Washington, yet he owned slaves. While thankfully we're past that, during his time this wasn't a moral question. Is it okay to posthumously blame him? Does that disqualify him from public display? I imagine one day people will look back on this time in a similar disgust that we killed and ate meat. If we apply this logic, there should be no statues of almost anyone from today. But in the end, we can change our mind based on current public opinion. I tend to err on the side of caution. You may really like Columbus, or Robert E. Lee, but I'm guessing the pride you get when you see those symbols is far outweighed by the hurt from groups they were against. So I am for their removal and storage.
Personally displaying the "Confederate Flag" is a related but separate issue. (Which, side rant - nobody is actually flying the Confederate Flag. You're all flying the Battle Flag. Also, the Confederacy lasted 4 years. Pokemon Go has literally been around for longer than the Confederacy, so I find any argument of having pride in the Confederacy a little strange.) Anyway. I am for freedom of speech, and you should be able to fly that if you want. But just as you have that freedom, I think people also have the freedom to call you out on it - as well as companies. So fly it if you want, but don't be a "snowflake" when people don't agree with your choice.
How do we solve this? There's a not-perfect-but-simple solution for statues on public land - have a vote. For something unimportant like that, you could even have it online. For private land, I think you'd run afoul of the 1st Amendment, but I would defer to legal experts on that. As to if antiquated practices we find cruel in retrospect disqualify one from greatness, I don't know. Unfortunately I don't think data can answer this question, but if it can, I'd like to learn.
Affirmative Action
This is a really difficult issue, and I can completely understand both
trains of thought. On the one hand, isn't artificially giving an
advantage to one race/gender/etc. discrimination? As in, "I am treating
you differently because of this superficial feature." On the other hand,
the system, or biases of people in the system, lead to those minorities
having a disadvantage. So affirmative action is a way to correct it, or
at least correct past faults. Both decisions are uncomfortable for me.
Even talking about it is a bit uncomfortable, because "white dudes" are
pretty much the last group to ever face discrimination, so my opinion I
believe has less weight than others. But current research I've seen
tends to suggest that affirmative action is a net benefit, or at least it doesn't hurt.
To solve it, I think the least uncomfortable approach is to focus on the
problem more than race. If this minority gets into university less,
well, why is that? As children, they tend to go to less good schools?
Well, increase funding for those schools. Then it's not a "race" thing,
it's a "bad schools get help" thing. But I realize that saying it and
doing it are far divorced in this case, and it just may not be workable. I'd like to keep an open mind on this issue, and I'm certainly glad I don't need to make a decision about it.
Healthcare
I challenge anyone who defends the US as having the "best healthcare in the world" to actually go and experience healthcare somewhere else in the world. Of course, "best" is a word with lots of room for interpretation. Life expectancy? Cost? Patient satisfaction? Speed? Ease of access? There's a lot to tear down, and the US is not the best in nearly any metric.
I am by no means an expert, but in all the places I've lived (and visited), healthcare is a million times better than in the US. Taiwan does have full on, socialized medicine. It was incredibly efficient and no sweat. Thailand and Mainland China are not socialized, but supported by the government (there are private hospitals that are considerably more expensive). They had a bit of a wait, and the public hospitals in China do make you feel like a cog in some incredibly hectic machine - but in the end, I got what I needed and paid like $10. The whole idea of tying "affordable" healthcare to work just seems silly, since people without jobs need healthcare too.
I understand it will not be without its faults - for example, much of the medical research done in the world is done by the US (though it is becoming more equitable). So I'm glad that the crazy high amounts people pay is going towards something worthwhile, but I think we could help fund that without financially ruining people who are "unlucky" enough to get sick.
Media Bias
This is an issue in America that I am quite concerned about.
It's said a bit tongue in cheek, how the media is the "4th estate" of
government. But I think we really underplay how important it is in our
lives. We rely on the media to tell us what is going on in Washington.
And that determines our votes and who will be around to make the next
decision.
I don't want to pull the, "Back in my day..." card, but I do want to pull the "Not so long ago..." card. Because the media seems to have really taken a nosedive
recently. As in 6, 7 years ago recently. I know 6 or 7 years seems like
forever ago, but my impression is that it has changed to be more
sensationalist, more "oh my god!", and more, unfortunately, biased.
And to an extent I get why. "Republicans and Democrats disagree on X"
is really boring compared to "REPUBLICANS SLAM DEMOCRATS ON DANGEROUS
PROPOSAL." But the 2nd one obviously shows you have a bias. And if so,
what facts are you including (or not) to advance your bias? And I wish I
could say that it's never this obvious, but it usually is. People
giving credence to such loaded statements reflect poorly on us as a
society.
In a way, I want to thank Trump for coining the term "Fake News",
because this is a problem we really need to be looking at.
Unfortunately, "fake news" as a recent term has been perverted to mean
"news that doesn't say what I want it to", and that's very concerning.
It shuts down dialogue immediately. Any argument can be countered with,
"You will not convince me because I don't trust the source of this
data." The thing is though, data can always be countered by better data.
But that data is getting harder to find, as more sources push
themselves to the extremes to get more views.
To solve it, I think we first need to be aware of it, and educate ourselves on it. Wikipedia
has a good article as a start, to see what kind of techniques that are
out there. Second, we should socially push for people to consume a wider
variety of news. On a personal level, I try my best to read from
foreign outlets and those which are found to be pretty central in terms of bias. I also have recently started browsing A Starting Point, oddly enough created in part by Captain America (Chris Evans). I also quite like /r/neutralpolitics,
for their requirement to include citations. But I also try read sources
which I disagree with, including but not limited to Fox, and even very
biased outlets like Xinhua. (which, unimportant to the conversation, but
Xinhua does a lot of unimportant human interest pieces, and is a breath
of fresh air to see a story about some Chinese granny who grows huge
vegetables by singing to them or something). But back on topic, if I see
an article which makes an important claim, I Google it and try and get
that from another source as well. It's not perfect, but I think it's the
best I can do without devoting a good portion of my day to analyzing
every story.
Partisanship
And finally, what I feel is the most important issue, one that
is at the crux of pretty much every other issue to follow. In the US, it
often seems that everything is distilled down to two options. Like,
your choices are Pepsi and Coke. And if you suggest RC, you're a weirdo.
Which, as a country that invented a billion different flavors of
Doritos, this false dichotomy is something I can't wrap my head around.
But if I can take a sharp turn here with a very serious situation as an
example: Rayshard Brooks, the man who fell asleep in his car at a
Wendy's drive-thru. If you don't remember the story, the cops were
called, they wake him up and take him out of the car. Everyone is
friendly, things are going well, but he appears to be drunk. The cops
tell him, "I'm sorry, we have to arrest you for DUI." He struggles with
the cops, wrestles away one of their tazers, and runs away. The cops
shoot him in the back and he dies. The narrative online seems that there
are two options. 1) He is just acting under instinct/is drunk, the
police behaved irresponsibly and this is an example of police brutality.
2) He committed a crime, assaulted an officer, and tried to evade
arrest, so "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". And sadly what I
don't see (much), is anyone saying that both of these things can be
true. It seems he committed a serious crime(s). He should be tried and
likely face punishment. But is that punishment death? Especially death
delivered by one person, in the heat of a moment, against another with
impaired judgement?
If you'll let me have one more example, closer to home - I follow a conservative subreddit, and I saw this posted the other day:
You can see I downvoted it not because it is unworthy of discussion -
but because it attaches liberals to being pro-slavery, or at least being
okay with slavery. And if your opponent is pro-slavery, it is
effortless to tear them down. I don't think it's extreme to say both
conservatives and liberals are anti-slavery across the board, so I find
this post particularly disgusting. If you dive into the comments,
thankfully a few people call this person out on it - but they are not
the top comments. And what percentage of readers will look at the
comments, scroll down, and then take those to heart? Or how many will
click on the article? Casual readers scrolling by, one may think "Ugh,
those liberals are turning a blind eye towards slavery now. What
disgusting people." For something with 2-thousand some upvotes, it will
get a lot of views.
Maybe this is why I don't care about living in the US very much. It's
really turned into a "me vs them" attitude. Even in conversation, you
see "The Left" and "The Right" as if they are defined entities, rather
than a spectrum. I'd also note when have you seen the nouns "The Left" and "The Right" used in a not-negative way? Like, honestly think about
that for a moment. The national conversation has really changed to be
binary,
adversarial, and as a country which is built on free speech, it socially
leaves little room for to express an opinion other than those. I feel
this is at the heart of pretty much all of the issues below. If the US
could shake this, maybe I wouldn't have such a negative view of it, and I
feel most of the other issues would not be issues at
all... or at least as serious.
As to how we solve this, I'm sure the answer most think of is to get out of the social media echo chamber, and there is some research
to support that. My unproven perception is that we are able to tailor
our own echo chambers to reinforce our ideas so strongly, that any other
idea that comes along in the "real world" are more likely to be
dismissed as wrong. But that's what people want, so if Facebook doesn't
provide this service, someone else will. As a start, maybe they could
notify the other person when you unfriend them. There are extensions
that do this already, but perhaps it would cause people to think twice
about unfriending when you disagree with anothers' views. I'd also like
to see a bit of a backlash against social media - to see it as a cake,
where a bit every once in a while is fine, but every day becomes
unhealthy.
However,
I think the real solution is to 1) actually talk to people, and 2)
assume good faith when you do. This is
something people ostensibly say they do, but I rarely see happen in
practice. Instead, people want to talk about the parts of an issue they
think are important, without actually responding to the other persons'
argument. For example, defund the police. Conservatives may say that we
actually need more police, especially community policing, to stop crime
before it starts, or as soon as possible when it does. Liberals may say
we need fewer police and more social workers, to put trained people in
the appropriate situation. Both sides have the same goal - less crime.
But almost nobody says "I get where you're coming from, but I think that
will not work like you expect because of XYZ data." Instead they say
"That's not the issue, my idea is better because of XYZ." (often without
data). But the first sentence is far more important, because it shows you're actually listening to the speaker. After empathizing with them, and acknowledging your shared goals, then you can propose an alternate solution (backed up by data). Try not to see the conversation as one you "win", or an opponent you want to beat. You're both trying to get to the same place. Be a
positive force in the conversation, like how Smarter Every Day approached this. Another example is Daryl Davis, a black man who befriended KKK members. I'd encourage you to view both, but I'd like to learn other ways we can solve this. Because I think solving this will go a long way to solving the other issues the US has.
And the US has a long way to go.
But it turned out to be a blessing in disguise. The Grade 1 team is now combined with Grade 2, so their department is huge, they have meetings all the time, everything needs to be re-planned anyway, and because of my slightly higher hours I get exempted from other admin nonsense. Plus I think I am a better Grade 3 teacher than a Grade 1 teacher. I dunno, I just seem to "fit" better in the role. But something I've tried to tell myself when I'm not feeling great about it is a quote I heard, "Comparison is the thief of joy." But I think that only applies if things are worse now. While I am working harder this year, I try to keep in my mind that I am actually in the classroom, working, about 12 hours a week. Compared to close to 40 when I did IT, things are still pretty good in teaching land.
