good point - you didn’t say biggest issue. But I think your premise is flawed. Do away with racism and the illegitimate claims will hold no water
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Spitballin' ways to fix America (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
DropKick
Footballguy
Racism has been dying on the vine for the last few decades kept alive by the race peddlers.
DropKick
Footballguy
An uptick? Compared to the riots, arson, looting and general anarchy in many democratic led cities?
DropKick
Footballguy
Blame yourself... people spit-balled as you asked and you felt it appropriate to counter their opinions or call them out.
Which I suggested people do in my first post. But I should not have an engaged as it’s a waste of time
DropKick
Footballguy
Let's not confuse the actions within extremist groups (tiny numbers) as that of the general population. The diversity today, it terms of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. is much better today than it was generations ago and it is continually improving. I suspect Jon thinks the same thing and that the continued agitation of race related issues is counter productive to continued progress.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
A problem I see in this conversation overall is a couple things:
1. I've seen multiple times people say something like "that was 40-50 years ago" or things on those lines. Basically saying it hasn't been a problem for a long time, not that it's better and still needs improving.
2. The sentiment of "we can't fix it with racism". When I see people talking about things like the huge wealth gap policies of the past created, funding for schools, etc.. I am all ears, but I don't know how you address those without increasing funding or focus on certain schools, doing something like Commish suggested with real estate, etc. And those solution do require giving something back to a specific community, and triggers the "that's not fair, it's racist" sentiments.
Jon and others can speak for themselves, but I have seen both these comments from people on these boards and believe he is one of them - at least for part 2. Yes, I agree that social media and the like are a big thing that needs to be fixed as far as our focus on race so much, but IMO a big hurdle we need to break down for people are these two, as I see a group of people that feel their experiences and stories aren't taken seriously (racism hasn't been an issue for decades) or they feel people don't want to help fix it (part 2 ).
The Commish
Footballguy
Same group ignores all the times where, even under the crappy conditions, people managed to begin gathering wealth only to have it taken away by vile acts or government policy.
The Commish
Footballguy
That could help, but comes riddled with it's own systemic problems that need to be fixed too. Those lay outside the law and are usually in the "policies and procedures" part of the process. I think the biggest, most straight forward thing that could help is affordable housing and proper zoning in areas where there's potential for growth.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Social media influencer has been one of the worst trends in the past 10 years, in my opinion.
And that's a real part of the problem.
It's real work to change things. For good or bad. So you have to be ready for tons of pushback.
For something like this, it's even more difficult as everyone has opinions. And people love to shred up other people's ideas. Often in the guise of "feedback" (which is necessary if done right). So throwing ideas out will always result in exactly this.
It's a lot easier to type a few comments and then get back to life.
One thing I see in a huge way and it's counterproductive to this forum:
It's much easier to type about this to actually talk about this.
And it's much easier to talk about it than it is to actually do something about it.
I know some folks spend a ton of time here.
I'd love to see folks take some of that time and put it to more productive use in their real world community and do things about the things they care about.
And I know that's an odd thing for the forum owner to say.
And yes, I know people are already doing some things. I'm saying I'd love to see more action.
It's much easier to type about this to actually talk about this.
And it's much easier to talk about it than it is to actually do something about it.
I know some folks spend a ton of time here.
I'd love to see folks take some of that time and put it to more productive use in their real world community and do things about the things they care about.
And I know that's an odd thing for the forum owner to say.
And yes, I know people are already doing some things. I'm saying I'd love to see more action.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This makes it worse, not better.
The problem is that a bunch of our congressional districts feature borderline-insane median voters.
quick-hands
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Could you explain in more detail how proportional representation makes things worse?
To echo @roadkill1292, are you suggesting that ranked choice voting would lead to more extremism, that proportional representation would, that both would independently, or that both combined would? Can you explain how?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I will be blunt - jon.
ETA: even more specifically, I am not for telling people not to post or share their ideas, but IMO there are 4-5 posters who's tone of posts palpably change the mood of threads once they get going.
Last edited by a moderator:
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
I don’t know a lot about RCV but aren’t you forced to rank candidates or your vote doesn’t count? You are also forced to rank a candidate even if you have zero interest in that candidate getting elected. In no scenario would I ever assign a rank for E.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene for fear for her getting elected yet, under RCV that scenario can and has happened. RCV is undemocratic if the person with the most votes doesn’t win. Unless I am incorrect about the above.
I think they’ve crossed the threshold and are now knowingly pedaling racism. If it’s not the biggest issue it’s way up there. The results speak for themselves - the country is the most divided it’s been in over a century.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
I’ve seen Jon get picked on here for a decade mostly because he is typically correct about every issue.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Obviously I won't agree on that.
As my edit indicated - IMO there are 3-4 on each side of the aisle who's presence in threads changes the tone of the thread. 0 to do with ideas, mostly to do with tone of posts and history with other posters. Probably shouldn't have said it, but I did so at least I will explain further.
My understanding is that you are wrong about that. RCV allows you to not cast a vote for anyone in second or third place. If you want however to have a second choice then it allows you to that.
Or to look at it another way - there’s been full equality under law pretty much since 1965. Over 85% of Americans alive today came of age in an era where there was pretty much equal opportunity. And the other 15% isn’t all that influential.
The Commish
Footballguy
All I did was quantify your first sentence and I agree with that all day every day. The second sentence regarding opportunity is demonstrably false and the part I started talking about in following posts. Starting with real estate, finance etc.
I could say Happy Thanksgiving and I would have 6 posters jump my ###. Oddly, I think this Rittenhouse and Brooks case has brought a lot of posters out of the woodwork and has changed the complexion of the forum, and to be blunt, not at all to your liking.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Indeed, you're never forced into voting for a candidate under RCV.
The best plan is the current Fair Representation Act, which uses Single Transferable Voting, a form of RCV, and multi-member districts. It will not only result in more proportionate outcomes but also pave the way for third parties to be competitive. That's always seemed to be a pretty important desire on this board.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
“In a 2016 essay in Democracy, Simon Waxman argues that RCV doesn’t actually lead to a candidate who represents the majority of voters. Also, an easily exhausted electorate doesn’t always rank all the candidates on a ballot, according to a 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies that looked at ballots from 600,000 voters in California and Washington counties. As a result, some voters end up with their ballots eliminated and no say in the final outcome.
Say there were five names on a ballot and you only ranked three, who were all eliminated, your now-blank ballot wouldn’t be counted in the final vote at all. You will not have expressed any choice about the two leading candidates.”
RCV
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If you don't vote for one of the top two vote getters on your ballot, you haven't been denied a voice. You've just been outvoted.“In a 2016 essay in Democracy, Simon Waxman argues that RCV doesn’t actually lead to a candidate who represents the majority of voters. Also, an easily exhausted electorate doesn’t always rank all the candidates on a ballot, according to a 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies that looked at ballots from 600,000 voters in California and Washington counties. As a result, some voters end up with their ballots eliminated and no say in the final outcome.
Say there were five names on a ballot and you only ranked three, who were all eliminated, your now-blank ballot wouldn’t be counted in the final vote at all. You will not have expressed any choice about the two leading candidates.”
RCV
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Still, STV is probably better than RCV and approval voting might be better than either.
That's not true.
You get more mean things thrown your way than any poster I know. BUT a ton of that is because you bring it on yourself. I've given up on trying to get you to change and now just accept it if you can stay within the bounds.
I see this forum more like the coach and you folks are all the players. I want not much more than to have good discussion and for folks to get along. So it truly bums me out to see @KarmaPolice say something like that to you. One, I don't think it's true. But also partly for the get along part but also partly because I hate to see people intentionally excluded. But it is what it is.
I hope we all can do our best to get along. And if someone rubs you the wrong way, I'd hope you'd be able to look past that person.
Last edited by a moderator:
opensourcebeer
Footballguy
An overturn Citizens United would be probably be the single most impactful thing that could be done.
As others have mentioned, term limits are needed.
Police reform is needed. Significant increases in training, salaries, and psychological/emotional support systems for officers is needed. Use funding for this from a decreased focus on military level hardware. An intense focus on removing officers with a history of an abuse of power is needed.
We need to significantly increase support for mental health and educational systems. We can't afford to become any stupider or more mentally unstable as a society.
Both political parties need to make it perfectly clear to any group that espouses violent behavior or hatred toward others that their group is not welcome in the party.
The general populace needs to stop watching and listening to media that provides an analysis of the news. We are constantly being bombarded with things to be outraged about and it clouds our ability to think critically about a given situation and prevents us from having empathy towards others.
As others have mentioned, term limits are needed.
Police reform is needed. Significant increases in training, salaries, and psychological/emotional support systems for officers is needed. Use funding for this from a decreased focus on military level hardware. An intense focus on removing officers with a history of an abuse of power is needed.
We need to significantly increase support for mental health and educational systems. We can't afford to become any stupider or more mentally unstable as a society.
Both political parties need to make it perfectly clear to any group that espouses violent behavior or hatred toward others that their group is not welcome in the party.
The general populace needs to stop watching and listening to media that provides an analysis of the news. We are constantly being bombarded with things to be outraged about and it clouds our ability to think critically about a given situation and prevents us from having empathy towards others.
Last edited by a moderator:
I hear a good bit about "fixing" social media. Or fixing our media.
But how would that ever work?
I don't think anyone wants state approved media, right?
Can you unpack this some?
But how would that ever work?
I don't think anyone wants state approved media, right?
Can you unpack this some?
opensourcebeer
Footballguy
State approved media isn't the answer. I don't think there is a fix that can be put into law. Rather we need to each individually recognize how and why we are being manipulated. I don't have much hope for this one, but improved support for mental health and educational systems might help.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
One of the pods I continually pimp is Your Undivided Attention. They have a lot of good ideas about fixing social media, or at the very least, tips on how we can adjust our habits.
Off the top of my head fixes I've heard: getting away from the business model of time on site = ad $, having it so people have to click on an read a link before sharing/retweeting, going to chronological order for videos/links, reworking the suggestion algorithms.
Maybe some sort of harsh penalty for things that aren't true would help. Make it where media can't label someone as a racist or white supremacist without facts. But that gets into gray areas too I guess. I don't know.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Honest Labels on broadcasts to curb misinformation -
The following program is opinion show.
The following is a news show
These are paid guests.
The military sponsors this event.
Just present things as they are and not as something they aren’t.
The following program is opinion show.
The following is a news show
These are paid guests.
The military sponsors this event.
Just present things as they are and not as something they aren’t.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
One thing I would love to see is more focus on debating topics. Maybe it's different now, but when I used to scan the 24/7 channels it was more 1 talking head spouting their takes on the news/topics. I think people are more receptive now thanks to pods and shows like Real Time to a longer-form discussion about a topic or two in an hour. A lot of these talking heads also feel to be more on the extreme ends of political spectrums, and people need more honest back and forth from people closer to the center.
Again, this probably doesn't generate $$ like a Tucker or Maddow will though.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Interesting ideas. Have news rating at the top of the screen. The following program is OP and MS - opinion and military sponsored. I like it.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I saw your post before the edit, @Joe Bryant. I admitted I should keep thoughts on those order to myself, but quick-hands asked and I wasn't going to lie or be coy about it. I tried to explain in more details my thinking, but probably dug myself deeper upon doing so.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Similar threads
