Politics And Current Events

[eddy]

Hahahaha. He has since been fired from his insurance job.

[obhave]

The DOE makes an interesting double-down here where they continue to suck in dollars and output............

I don't mean to take it global like that and neither of us want to go down that road here. But Wyoming University (exists?) is probably in a different place right now than Arizona State. A federal bureaucracy, whose main role is to.....uhhhh...make bad, bloated deals with minors and 18 year olds...? I'm still not sure...anyway, a federal bureaucracy, trying to oversee - what - several thousand (?) colleges and universities with all entirely different locations, needs, student populations, academics, setups, etc. isn't super tenable even if they claimed to be competent...

No one is going to know their school better than the school itself...they want money, so it's not like they're going to close. But they also don't want students to die (see: money). So they have their own best interest in mind and can make a more informed decision than any one-size (or even ten-sizes) fit-all crap that the DOE could reasonably spit out...

Not 100% sure, but i think the DOE deal with K-12, but the anecdote still applies. If your problem is the DOE telling the district what to do, that is exactly what they are doing, what if a district believes its in their best interest to be remote next year?

Also, I am struggling to find how a district knowing itself better helps it prepare for pandemic conditions? They will of course know the "how", but how are they all going to know the "what". So the one agency, who's job it is, is to establish policy for the country's schools, is not doing it's job to inform schools on what actions have to be taken.

I don't see how the school wouldn't know. They're the school. The DOE doesn't have any idea how pandemic **** works...they're not the CDC, they're not knowledgeable...they're not the ones closing down bars...they're just some weird middleman that has no bearing on the world at-large.

In the same way the SBA doesn't tell the mom and pop restaurant down the street from me what they can and can't do...someone that evidently knows what they're doing does...

The DOE seems to be mostly a middleman that scrapes some money off the top for themselves and nothing else...they're certainly not in a better position to remark on pandemic than the CDC (or whoever says ****) and the school itself...

But, this might be crazy, they should be working with the CDC to determine guidelines and other things that might be guided by data they have on different districts and situations across the US.

Working together provides an organization that isn't well versed in a school day/teachers needs but knows infectious diseases to work with people of opposite knowledge.

[faftorial]

But, this might be crazy, they should be working with the CDC to determine guidelines and other things that might be guided by data they have on different districts and situations across the US.

Working together provides an organization that isn't well versed in a school day/teachers needs but knows infectious diseases to work with people of opposite knowledge.

[NAN]

Angry anti-masker:

Yeah, heard he lost his job.

I just don't understand why people act like this when they know they are being filmed (or just in general).

On another note, I don't know why these stores allow people in w/o masks even though they have signs posted. I was at Home Depot on Route 8 the other day, and saw like 3 people w/o masks walking around, even though clearly it said everyone needed a mask. (maybe they had medical issues, but 2 of the ones I saw were like mid 20s and landscapers, so I'd assume they didn't have issues).

Are these stores allowed to turn them around if they don't have a medical excuse?

[tifosi77]

I don't think it's simple. It's a bad situation for them and many will go out of business.

It's a horrible situation. The owners, in order to try to stay in business, are just asking for a little help and guidance, and not continually change the rules every 2 weeks. Any little bit will help some owners stay in business. Which was the initial point.

The reality of the pandemic does not allow for that kind of forward planning. It sucks, but there frankly just isn't any way of providing guidance that looks that far into the future, and there are unique dynamics of how restaurants work that leave them particularly vulnerable to this kind of craptastic situation. An independent restaurant might operate on something like a 5% margin.

The simple fact is that there is a strong likelihood that very many local independent restaurants will open up between now and, say, September, be able to stay afloat for a few months (perhaps into 2021), and then they'll shutter again, but this time it will be for good because they simply cannot support operations with reduced customer capacity. And that is separate and apart from any health guidelines from CDC or whoever; if people don't feel safe, they aren't going out, regardless.

And for the 10-11 million people directly employed by independent restaurants in this country, figure that number again that are indirectly employed in support industries (farmers, fishermen, winemakers, cheese makers, etc).

[CBear3]

Angry anti-masker:

Yeah, heard he lost his job.

I just don't understand why people act like this when they know they are being filmed (or just in general).

On another note, I don't know why these stores allow people in w/o masks even though they have signs posted. I was at Home Depot on Route 8 the other day, and saw like 3 people w/o masks walking around, even though clearly it said everyone needed a mask. (maybe they had medical issues, but 2 of the ones I saw were like mid 20s and landscapers, so I'd assume they didn't have issues).

Are these stores allowed to turn them around if they don't have a medical excuse?

They're allowed to turn them away even if they have a medical issue.
The ADA allows restrictions if you pose a direct threat to others, and the EEOC in March declares COVID meets the direct threat standard.

[mikey]

@obhave

I mean, clearly not, right? That's the dream scenario where the zillions of dollars actually outputs a usable product. But you have that house plant going, "you better do this..." and the CDC going, "don't be near others inside"...it's very plain to see that there's no collab there...whether it's because one is a Trump disciple and the other one isn't or because the DOE just does nothing, I don't know...I have a guess, but I don't really know...

Even in your scenario, it's still tough to find a need for that middleman...really tough. Especially when you factor in the alleged competence level running a multi-million dollar education facility (obviously doing well) and...the DOE...I mean, how many different ways can you really plausibly go here vs restaurants/bars/gyms etc.? Limited capacity = every other day or whatever else we talked about up-thread. They were already doing online stuff to finish out the previous year. It's not a Rubik's Cube...and a federal agency isn't full of special people who can figure things out either, as we have seen, they're just regular old people...

It's just tough to find the advantage...

In a dream world, yes, they're all competent and they collaborate and everything works pretty well or better, I agree 100%...I just don't know what country you live in where you see that as a reasonable outcome...(which I'm not saying at your intelligence, certainly, I'm just saying at the situation at large)

[Kraftster]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

[tifosi77]

Are these stores allowed to turn them around if they don't have a medical excuse?

Not sure how the rules are in PA, but I've seen customers turned away for not wearing masks a couple times and at different types of businesses (funnily, one was also Home Depot). But that was very early days on the mask stuff, and one instance was actually before the city government order, when it was just a business-specific policy. Compliance with the mask thing has been pretty universal here (with a few very noticeable exceptions), which has lead to its own problems; people think the masks are kryptonite and are much more lax about social distancing.

[King Colby]

That is very well said

[tifosi77]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

JK Rowling

lol

[AuthorTony]

I don't know why these stores allow people in w/o masks even though they have signs posted.

Because of asshats like this.
https://triblive.com/local/regional/gia ... sk-policy/

[offsides]

I don't know why these stores allow people in w/o masks even though they have signs posted.

Because of asshats like this.
https://triblive.com/local/regional/gia ... sk-policy/

Them and their lawyers.

[faftorial]

I don't know why these stores allow people in w/o masks even though they have signs posted.

Because of asshats like this.
https://triblive.com/local/regional/gia ... sk-policy/

I have a hard time believing this:

When denied entry to the store, Shepherd said he explained he was a disabled veteran and asked to speak with a manager. Shepherd reportedly asked the manager – who did not provide his name – if he was familiar with the ADA.

According to Shepherd’s complaint, the manager responded, “I don’t give a [expletive] about them. We follow the Pennsylvania governor’s law. No mask, no entry.”

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

did you guys know that masks increase your chances of infection? take off your blindfolds sheeple

[Troy Loney]

I don't know why these stores allow people in w/o masks even though they have signs posted.

Because of asshats like this.
https://triblive.com/local/regional/gia ... sk-policy/

I would say, more that video from I think FL where a dude just rolls into the store and has a shoving match with a large dude trying to block him for getting in. The employee was a young guy, the asshat, older, and so the employee was just like playing tackle trying to block the guy from being in the store while the guy just keeps trying to push through. Moral of the story, if I'm making 7.25 an hour, I am not going to physically try and evict a maskless customer. I know my friend told me about an instance at the beer store where a maskless customer came in, employees yell at him, he ignores them and just goes about his errand. I don't think my friend stayed to confirm that the maskless guy was checked out or not. I think GE has put some security guards at the entrance to I assume police the mask policy, but to pretend that every story is capable/willing to do that....you're dreaming.

[nocera]

Source of the post did you guys know that masks increase your chances of infection? take off your blindfolds sheeple

That chart made the rounds on my facebook feed a few weeks ago. It was shared by exactly the type of person who you'd expect to share it.

[willeyeam]

Source of the post did you guys know that masks increase your chances of infection? take off your blindfolds sheeple

That chart made the rounds on my facebook feed a few weeks ago. It was shared by exactly the type of person who you'd expect to share it.

Whatever you sheep

[NAN]

I don't think it's simple. It's a bad situation for them and many will go out of business.

It's a horrible situation. The owners, in order to try to stay in business, are just asking for a little help and guidance, and not continually change the rules every 2 weeks. Any little bit will help some owners stay in business. Which was the initial point.

The reality of the pandemic does not allow for that kind of forward planning. It sucks, but there frankly just isn't any way of providing guidance that looks that far into the future, and there are unique dynamics of how restaurants work that leave them particularly vulnerable to this kind of craptastic situation. An independent restaurant might operate on something like a 5% margin.

The simple fact is that there is a strong likelihood that very many local independent restaurants will open up between now and, say, September, be able to stay afloat for a few months (perhaps into 2021), and then they'll shutter again, but this time it will be for good because they simply cannot support operations with reduced customer capacity. And that is separate and apart from any health guidelines from CDC or whoever; if people don't feel safe, they aren't going out, regardless.

And for the 10-11 million people directly employed by independent restaurants in this country, figure that number again that are indirectly employed in support industries (farmers, fishermen, winemakers, cheese makers, etc).

Yep, definitely a trickle down affect that will affect many.

[Morkle]

Captain Deplorable hasn't made that tweet a political statement.

[Freddy Rumsen]

[count2infinity]

lol

[MR25]

*chef's kiss*

[Troy Loney]

https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice ... en-debate/

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Pretty star-studded collection of signatures on this letter printed in Harper's. I read this right after I read about the efforts by some in academia to cancel Steven Pinker, and it left me feeling more hopeful that sort of thing will not catch on. In any event, given the wide swath of ideologies represented by the signatories, this sort of reinforced my concerns surrounding cancel culture (or whatever we want to call it) in terms of direct impact and election impact.

This bolded part is what has shaped my opinion on this. There are obviously participants in this circus that don't have any interest in the actual opponent/villain that has to be confronted and are just riding the wave attention on social media. There is a cottage industry of right-wing extremists that are able to inject their toxic propaganda into a mainstream amplification by instigating conflict with this "silencing conservatives" mantra. It's not hard to find people sympathetic to the cause of the conservative voices being shouted down on campuses, who then spread messages from those bad actors (hint, here).

To me, it's just a forest through the trees. You are never going to get people to conform to your views or act according to your designs. You don't have to agree with everyone, and you can couple that with choosing to not respect their views and opinions. And to that note, saying that a point or argument is stupid and irrelevant is not "stifling" their speech. It is absolutely hilarious that people on this board have been trying to pretend that they are victims of being shouted down on this board.

[nocera]

Teachers union president dares Trump to sit in classroom amid coronavirus 'and breathe that air'
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... class-amid

Trump on Wednesday morning threatened to cut funding to schools that fail to reopen, claiming without evidence that reluctance to open was an attempt to sabotage him politically.