You must log in or # to comment.
If we privatize the schools, train the lower class for work and motherhood, this will.be a Fair Society! The weak stay in their place.
[this is what Conservatives actually believe]
this is what Conservatives actually believe
It kind of is! They believe in hierarchy, and that people need to be in their correct place for the world to work. It’s a reason they oppose things like social programs- things that try to bring people up contradict the natural order and lead to bad times!
They’re kind of bad people, fundamentally.
Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as). But “conservative” is too broad a label, because neoconservatives & paleoconservatives disagree dramatically. More right-liberal or libertarian-leaning conservatives generally do not oppose voluntary associations. That is their thing. They love open-source, volunteering, agorism, & so on. I do not know enough about neoconservatives to comment extensively, but they seem probably so obsessively pro-Israel & would likely change their views to anything if it helped Israel.
There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.
Thomas Jefferson in 1817. He penned, “Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.
In 1794, James Madison stood on the House floor and objected, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
The Post is only fulfilling its original purpose since it was founded by Alexander Hamilton; it is a political mouthpiece for the moneyed interests in New York City.
One of their earliest political hit pieces absolutely decimated John Adams’ already tenuous political career in the public eye and ultimately paved the way for Jeffersonian politics to calcify around the heart of our nation’s politics.
Huh I would have thought the NYP was founded in like 1980 or something
“fucking communists and their education fetish” -
NYTNYPThis one is New York Post.
Yes but what’s this anime?
apparently: Kaju Nukumizu from the anime series Too Many Losing Heroines!
public school budgets can’t be bloated, only misappropriated.
Which usually happens under dipshit republican school boards.
“this man is investing in making kids smarter rather than making my stock portfolio increase by an additional 0.0001% and this makes him an existential threat to society”
-NY Post, translated from news editese
Funding schools framed as corruption.
And actual corruption under the Trump family framed as intelligence and constant winning
Welcome to neoliberalism.
What do you think neoliberalism is?
It’s the same as liberalism which is the same as capitalism.
Yes but this one is the neo version of it, where everything gets worse and more expensive for everyone until the mega rich are satisfied (never).
There’s far more than enough money to go around, it is that most spending is inefficient. Lunches should be free and healthy, books should be free unless it’s intentionally damaged, teachers should be paid well (60k minimum) and management should take a pay cut.
60k was pre 2020 rate, they should be paid 100k+ for how much training and bullshit they have to go through.
150k in like NY, SD, LA, SF. Maybe closer to 60k in Beckley WV. Cost of living and taxes aren’t the same everywhere.
Arguably, more rural schools or those in lower income areas should be paying proportionally better for teachers, to attract talent that would otherwise have no interest in being in that area. Those schools tend to be where students and their families have little or no say about what districts they are in, as they use regional magnet schools that cater to multiple small towns. They’d have to completely upend everything and move a substantial distance to have options urban folks take largely for granted. My town has two public and three private school systems, for example, and its only moderately urban. Where I grew up, one school district serviced 1/4 of the county.
Currently the rural districts pay nearly nothing and its lower than other places which also pay nearly nothing, so they get the worst of the worst educators who can’t find better and it keeps everyone’s wages depressed generationally.
But social mobility is a dream of that past that’s long since dead and buried anyway.
It depends on circumstances, you’re assuming a scenario vs the scenario of a local who went to a good university and wants to stay in their small town. Ideally things are left up to the decision of each community and school board. Like if they want to commit a particular percentage of the funds to teachers pay to attract a greater talent then that’s a decision they can make. My argument is mostly that at minimum teachers should make a decent living wage in respect to the local market. 60k in a rural town in Mississippi, Montana, or West Virginia isn’t the same as 60k in NYC, SF, LA, DC and so on as the default minimum.
I never said anyone shouldn’t make a decent wage wrt:local economy. But I live in a depressed economy, and have my whole life, so I know full well just how stuck people get financially when they are from low cost areas or spend too much of their career time in one. Hardly anyone goes to a good school and then goes back to their shitty home town on purpose, because college is expensive and they can’t pay it off while making peanuts in their hometown. It ends up being an option only desperate people take, which means shitty teachers, which in turn means dumb kids who go on to lead low income lives.
I said rural and low cost areas should pay proportionally more, probably just through state budgets rather than giving them an option they will always choose to fuck up, to attract talent, because it’s good for the community across generations. A rising tide lifts all ships, and maybe people would go to a good school and then go back to their hometown, if their hometown was offering them a decent quality of life.
Its true that 60k is different in low cost areas vs high cost ones, but thats part of my point. Its not like our low income areas are a separate country with their own currency and stuff. The only way it matters that 60k spends differently is if you never plan to leave. Wanna go on vacation? That 6k trip that’s reasonably affordable at 1/20th yearly wages for someone in California who makes 120k (comparing high wages in respective markets), is 1/10 yearly wages for someone making 60, a substantial difference in impact for the same life experience for two people making similarly “good wages” in their local economy, and there aren’t any poor area discounts, either. If they want to sell their house and buy one somewhere with better opportunities, they will absolutely for sure still need a substantial mortgage they will never get approved for because everything is so much more expensive than what they are selling from, and their work income history is so much lower than what’s required. Our goods aren’t cheaper either, other than maybe food and gas. That big purchase is proportionally bigger for someone who earns less, even if everyone around them also earns less.
I’d like to see the income distribution curve sort of level out a bit where mobility (physical, in this case) was a real option for all of us rather than something you have to take a massive risk of homelessness or be from a wealthy area to do. I’d like to see wages in low income areas increase faster than those in big urban areas, simply because they have been so much more stagnant for so much longer (min wage here is still 7.25 and lots of jobs still pay that -can’t live on that here either). Mostly, I’d like to see quality of life increase in poor areas, and that means more money available to the local economy. One of the ways to do this is to get better educational outcomes, make the future workforce desirable. Better education also tends to decrease conservatism, so it’d be doubly good to do. Snowball effect and everything.
Beckley deserves so much more than to be a tourist trap where people get told lies about the union
Lol I literally just picked it off the map. I really wasn’t expecting anyone in this thread to know that location intimately.
it’s just down the road from me. it’s a convergence point between a bunch of mining towns so it’s a bit of a significant labor organization point in central Appalachia. it’s also where Mother Jones founded the UMWA. also prior to European colonization it access between the Allegheny highlands and the great valley made it an ideal trading hub thanks to the New River, so it holds significance to indigenous rights organizers in Appalachia as well. the fact that the median income is $19k/yr is very much a policy choice of enforcing poverty
A lot of interesting information. I’ve found in personal experience the further west one travels the less connected people are to their geographic location. Maybe also it’s an aspect of smaller and bigger states. Like small states seem to have a lot of people with a lot of awareness of the local history and pride vs bigger states it’s very difficult to find someone like that. Maybe a third aspect is high traffic states, aka locations with lots of transplants vs areas with essentially none. So by the time you reach Southern California it’s nearly impossible to casually meet someone who knows anything about the local history much less has a serious pride or attachment to the location.
NYC teachers max out at about $124,000 after 15+ years and if they have a master’s. That’s not some huge amount in NYC. At least they get a pension so they can move to Costa Rica after they retire and live somewhat comfortably.
That’s livable in that area for the most part. I imagine engineers range 80k to 180k in the same area unless they work their way into management or are in a particular in demand field.
There are some issues around corruption and school management. Schools near me requested substantial funding to replace aging AC units. The very next year after they got it, a number of the AC units failed, and they couldn’t replace them. An audit showed that the entire funding for the AC replacement was divided among the top administrators and paid as a bonus.
That said, the way to stop that from happening isn’t to defund public schools and just repeat the same problem with private schools. You put in some oversight. You make them provide reports for the funding, spot-check, and trust with verification.
Pushing kids into private schools by defunding will make education (and safety) impossible to monitor.
And they all got prison sentences, right? Right? Of course they didn’t…
My local school district (that I actually work for as a bus driver) brought in a new superintendent for $600,000 a year. Did fuck all except for bringing in a bunch of his cronies to work meaningless jobs for over $200,000 a year and pissing off the teachers with more meaningless busywork. Three years into his six-year contract the school board had to run him out, by basically offering him his remaining $1.8 million to leave peacefully.
If only there were some entity designed to oversee education and how public schools are run…
NYC teachers already start at $68,902 per year. That’s not really “paid well” though considering it’s NYC.
Yeah when I said 60K minimum I was thinking 60k West Virginia not 60K NYC.
60K minimum indeed is a minimum these days
Teachers should be paid more than, say, marketing people at a blockchain AI startup. Teachers add value to the world.
You don’t get it! Everything Mandamni does is bad because the uhmmmm, the uhhhhh
I wouldn’t say everything Mamdani does is bad. I would support his opposition to Israel, & I would be happy if he could somehow arrest Netanyahu.
That said, I think his rent freeze policy is a bad idea. A rent freeze is just the government forcing landlords not to be able to raise rents when a tenant leaves, even if the cost of providing the good has gone up.
I don’t think the government should make it harder for private businesses to provide goods & services. Rent freezes hurt smaller landlords, leaving only the biggest companies able to afford staying in the market. They also lead to rundown buildings, which the government could then use as an excuse to step in and take over those properties. That is probably Mamdani’s intent & goal, since undermining the effectiveness of capitalism could popularize socialism.
good thing “providing” housing costs nothing. it only makes money. you get the equity of owning the building and the rent. the cost of upkeep is always FAR behind rent. the idea that providing housing costs a huge amount of money is absurd. It’s parasitic. If the people paying the rent, which is the upkeep and additional profit, owned the equity, they would also eventually break even and make money. Talking to people like they aren’t smart enough to understand how badly they are getting robbed, isn’t an argument. it’s assholery.
Honestly, I’m under the impression that building a building requires scarce resources and labor, which have opportunity costs reflected in market prices, and maintaining a building likewise requires ongoing expenditures. I would agree that, when someone becomes a landlord, the goal is generally to earn a return on the capital they risk, while facing uncertainties such as tenants not paying rent, changes in government policy, and other market risks. Whether any particular landlord is a good or bad person is something I can’t really speak to.
Just because the cost to produce something goes up doesn’t mean the product price needs to go up.
If Trump goes to war with Iran, the price of oil goes up. Since you’re restricting supply, things like airfare also go up because they rely on jet fuel to provide their service. It’s the same with housing. It’s all supply & demand.
Yes and a price limit could be applied to oil there just isn’t. This technically causes a “shortage” (which means something specific not just whatever you think) but housing and oil are complex markets and there’s a lot of nuance. Also housing doesn’t get consumed or ever move. It’s not like the landlord can ship a building somewhere that rents are higher.
Scary commie muslim
“If he was a good person God would have made him white”
They won’t say that out loud, but this is what they really think, deep inside of the shriveled cockles of their black hearts
Fuck the NYP, but sadly both can be true.
Look at the University of California. Paying slave’s wages to faculty in spite of ever-increasing tuitions that only feed a giant tumor called “admin.”
Paying slave’s wages to faculty in spite of ever-increasing tuitions that only feed a giant tumor called “admin.”
If you think that’s just UC, then I have bad news for you.
Look at the University of California.
There was a lot of money that UC funneled to construction companies and banks during the LIBOR rigging scandal. It affected a lot of universities around the country, and became big news when Harvard sued to get their money back. The UC Regents said “nothin to see here” and elected not to pursue getting the stolen money back. Shortly after, one of those regents got a VP gig at Wells Fargo (with no prior banking experience).
So yeah… fuck the NYP for sure, but education budgets are badly bloated and the crookedness is rampant.
Curse those overfunded public schools!
But I remember even they recognized how much of a scumbag Mayor Guilliani was.
The NY post is a trump enabling shit rag.
there’s a reason Wikipedia only trusts NYP for stuff like pop culture and not politics
Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of center-left viewpoints. It doesn’t allow similar right-wing sources to be cited in the same way that it allows similar left-wing ones. My solution to Wikipedia’s bias problem would be to add bias labels to edits & users instead of banning sources along partisan lines. Users could voluntarily identify their own biases, and other users could dispute those labels if they believed they were inaccurate. P.S. Wikipedia and Reddit are major contributors to why LLMs tend to have that left-of-center bias.
chud
‘Right wing sources’ are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn’t real, women don’t deserve rights because god doesn’t recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).
Like idk man I just don’t see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that’s a problem for politicians not people interested reality.
Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you’ve abadoned factuality.
To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren’t a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we’re all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition’s perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don’t have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.
I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.
In order to “balance the scales” you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren’t.
All you’re doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.
Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I’m not really a tribal person, so I don’t particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn’t say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.
Excuse me but could you explain what an “open border policy” even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?
What the fuck are you even talking about? There’s not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of “open borders” and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.
Supporting or not supporting “open borders” is not a political stance because there’s no meaning to the words, its nonsense.
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
“[Reality] is heavily biased in favor of
centerleft view points.”I wouldn’t say that; sometimes statistics, like crime statistics, are distorted at the point of collection. The misclassification of non-white offenders as “white” in crime statistics leads to an overrepresentation of white crime in the USA, which racist people could probably use as fuel for their perceived persecution.
In the UK, you’ll see Pakistanis being labeled as Asian, which would lead people to joke that Japanese people are doing X or Y crimes. In the USA, you’ll see Arabic or other non-stereotypical white names, and pictures of people obviously not white, being labeled as white.
P.S. I don’t support any racist whatnot; it’s just a notable example of data collection skewing a statistic and causing an overrepresentation of crimes committed by so-called white people.
The FBI’s White Crime Numbers Count More Than White Americans
That source is some guy’s blog masquerading as a newspaper. Also, even if it’s accurate, I don’t see how “whites” (which has always been a malleable term) being marginally overrepresented in some subset of crime statistics is worth anyone’s attention at this point. How is this of value to anyone except white supremacists trying to pretend their ideology is supported by facts?
It’s probably the wrong example to bring up, even if it is true, since it’s likely to elicit an emotional response that undermines the delivery of the original intent of my point: that data collection is a point where the statistics people rely on are often skewed.
Is wikipedia biased or are the facts just generally not in favor of the right wing side of politics? Is wikipedia rejecting right wing sources or does right wing media just have a higher than average tendancy to cater to public opinion with “editorial liberties”?
This is not the first time I hear people essentially brand wikipedia as left wing, but it would be the first time somebody actually proved that sentiment with some examples that proves factual right wing sources are actively rejected.
I have no problem with the idea that reality and therefore wikipedia could be left leaning, but that’s only a problem if it’s forced to look that way. I don’t think it is.
Here’s a direct source for Wikipedia’s own position on source reliability. I could send you someone’s interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it’s better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.
Larry Sanger bias drama discussed from a perspective likely closer to your own bias. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html
https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity
Larry Sanger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Jimmy Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
P.S. It’s possible to dislike right-wingers and still acknowledge that Wikipedia has a bias problem.
Perhaps because right wing sources have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
Reality sometimes has a left-wing bias…
Wikipedia has its bias shaped by the sources it allows users to cite. It could be correlated with reality, but I do not believe that to be the case.
I’m gonna be honest, most parts in history are center-left. You’re not gonna have this utopia of right wing facts because most of them are oversimplification. Tremendously.
🤤
Those greedy teachers wanting to eat three meals a day! The gall of these people!
Jesus Christ on a crutch, NYC teachers start at $68,902 per year. That sounds kind of OK until you factor in the cost of … fucking everything there.
Ah you want a roof over your head? I’ll just take 75 percent of your income for this here glorified broomcloset please and thank you.
