Not exactly. It's more that they are questioning Biden's decision to only consider black women for certain roles (VP, Supreme Court Justice). They know affirmative action polls poorly, so they're attacking him where he's weak.
Americans, by and large, want people to be selected based solely on ability. They want everyone to have a fair chance - but despise the idea of guaranteed slots being held open for people who look a certain way. Even California outlawed affirmative action.
This isn't the terrible double-standard you think it is - just a decently calibrated political attack.
The average black person cares way less about having a black president than the typical white Lemmy user assumes they do. Only the most off-the-rails liberals support allowing race to be a factor in hiring decisions. Hell - even far-left California outlawed affirmative action.
If you're picking a president based on race, you are implicitly racist and therefore part of the problem.
Not relevant. Trump voters don't care about reality, while the rest of us do. If the Democrats want to be the party of sane, responsible voters they'll need to put up a sane, responsible candidate.
When we say "politicians who don't give a shit about you", does that include 80+ year old men who are willing to throw our democracy away as long as they do their "goodest job"? All because they are addicted to power and can't imagine a world where someone is more electable than they are, despite overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary?
And when we say "career politicians", does that include people that were elected to the Senate 60 years ago when they were in their 20s?
It's #Joever. Time to accept it and move on. Bending over backwards to defend him doesn't make you a hero, it makes you a useful idiot.
If you watched the debate and can still imagine a scenario where Biden wins Michigan (and the rest of the electoral college), I have some investments I'd like to show you....
You know our election is done state by state, right? Less hopium and copium, and more attention to the facts please. If Biden loses just one swing state, his odds of winning the electoral college drop to single digits. No matter how many millions of people turn out in California or New York, this election is going to come down to 10,000 votes across 6 swing states. And those 10,000 folks are telling us loud and clear, "BIDEN IS TOO OLD".
I'm guessing the actual prompt was "Generate an image of raw salmon fillets in a river", and the entire point was to meme the hell out of it. Here's what you actually get if you do the test in good faith. No levitating, no raw fillets, just salmon in a river.
ITT: A bunch of folks who didn't read the article.
The article didn’t say young people were doing worse than before, which it seems like all of you assumed.
The reason the study found for why youth is no longer one of the “happiest times” is because they showed that people only do better and better as they age. So whereas before your youth would be comparatively happier to your 'mid-life crisis', they’re saying that crisis doesn't occur anymore and we just get happier and happier into midlife and old age. So your younger days didn't get worse, they just aren't as great in comparison because the rest of your life gets so much better as time goes on.
Sounds crazy, I know. But that's what the article was actually saying.
Actually, the article didn't say young people were doing worse. The reason that youth is no longer one of the "happiest times" is because the study showed that people only do better and better as they age. So where before your youth would be comparatively happier to your mid-life crisis, they're saying we just get happier and happier into midlife and old age.
I haven't made any arguments to "bad faith". I just saw OP saying the father should face gun charges, and that's a topic I know a bit about, so I thought I'd chime in with a quick fact check. I never said the father wasn't a piece of shit or that he shouldn't go to jail.
If you’re going to fight a just but losing battle, fight the one that informs all others that won’t get rotten fruit unfairly pelted at you in the public square.
Love this line. I've been eating a lot of fruit here on Lemmy. Going to have to put some thought into this one.
I'm linking to peer-reviewed scientific studies over here. If you want to dispute what I'm saying, avoid the genetic fallacy and engage with the substance.
By "lower-status", I meant lower socioeconomic status. Less education and less income. The two things women primarily judge potential mates on.
It is true that women generally want a partner who makes the same or more than them, while men generally find income/career status less important in mate selection. That is a scientific fact before you politicize it. And it's also a fact that as more women receive higher education and fair pay, the pool of men who make the same or more than the average woman will shrink pretty dramatically.
So it is true to say that as women become empowered and more able to care for themselves without the help of a man, the majority of lower-income and males with a lower socioeconomic status will have a much harder time finding a mate. This mostly affects men negatively at a younger age when their earnings are lowest and they sit closest to the bottom of that hierarchy. Conversely, the negative impacts hit women later on when the end of their child-bearing years approaches and they realize that putting a family on hold to focus on their career may have been a more permanent decision than they'd intended now that they've moved up the economic ladder and the small proportion of men at or above their level are either already taken or happy to play the field non-monogamously.
It hits both genders just as hard and it's an issue we need to solve. Our evolutionary psychology and mate selection processes just haven't caught up with modern society. And since males are more prone to isolation and suicide, we see the affects against them more readily. But the affects to women will become more apparent in the next few decades.
I know this is politically charged territory, but it's pretty well established from a sociological and evolutionary psychology perspective.
Not exactly. It's more that they are questioning Biden's decision to only consider black women for certain roles (VP, Supreme Court Justice). They know affirmative action polls poorly, so they're attacking him where he's weak.
Americans, by and large, want people to be selected based solely on ability. They want everyone to have a fair chance - but despise the idea of guaranteed slots being held open for people who look a certain way. Even California outlawed affirmative action.
This isn't the terrible double-standard you think it is - just a decently calibrated political attack.