• frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yesterday they made higher education less accessible to non-whites, today they made it harder for the poor…

    I wonder if there’s a pattern here.

    • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good, because affirmative action was never a fair solution to the issue and was simply unfair in principle imo. We shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race, college admissions and race should have nothing to do with one another. Class-based affirmative action actually makes sense instead of deciding off race.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have class based affirmative action. Rich people buy their kids into school all the time.

      • withdrawn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good,

        Jesus H. Christ. Either stop being a racist or learn to organize your thoughts.

        • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You literally cut his quote in the middle of the sentence. He says its good specifically because it was not a result of fair treatment, right after you cut him off.

          The world is upside down when you can someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist.

          • withdrawn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you can call someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist when they’re using that line to applaud the removal of protections against institutional racism. We can argue the merits of AA as a form of protection, but it was protection nonetheless. To say that it was unfair is to entirely ignore the unfairness which necessitated its existence.

          • withdrawn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How was it not? How is non-whites having less access good?

            You follow what I quoted by claiming it wasn’t fair (“imo”) because, as you say, “we shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race” which is great if you ignore the fact that nearly every institution in the US treats people differently based on race, whether intentional or not. It is exceedingly rare for that bias to swing in the favor of non-whites.

            With no meaningful alternative to AA, what exacxtly is the win here?

            • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Non-whites having less access is good in this context, because they were being unfairly given an advantage before. I agree with your premise about bias, but why should the solution to that be to artificially inflate the people being discriminated against, instead of trying to provide a system that doesn’t have room for discrimination?

              Class based alternative action, along with anonymizing applicant details pertinent to their race is a meaningful alternative to AA.

              • withdrawn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I agree on the last point, but there isn’t a class based system in place, nor is there a plan to implement one (that I can find).

                That, I shall continue to argue, makes this very not good.

                • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree with no proper replacement this will overall have a negative effect. I think the method race-based AA uses was very flawed.

    • KingSnorky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s Republican moral bankruptcy and cruelty that we will all suffer. If anyone’s stupidity got us here, it’s the Democratic Party’s stupid leadership since AT LEAST 2000, if not earlier. Republicans have telegraphed their intentions for 50 fuckin years and Democrats continued over and over to attempt reaching across the aisle, trying to pass bipartisan wins, “take the high road,” … all the while the Republican party continued putting their racist, xenophobic, mysoginistic, jingoistic, classist platform out year after year, abandoning all sense of decorum and norms, gerrymandering the fuck out of every district possible, blocking every bill that helps anyone aside from billionaires and corporations, and generally lying and cheating their way to what we have today.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        since AT LEAST 2000

        Democrats: It’s just a coincidence that two lawyers who worked on the Supreme Court case that handed Bush the election in 2000 happen to be Supreme Court Justices today!

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think, if there’s independent historians in the future looking back, they’ll be mentioned in the same sentence as Neville Chamberlain often.

    • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you need any reason not to believe in god, it’s that Trump got to appoint THREE FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

      • seesaw@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know enough about US politics, but can’t Biden change the court justices? If the answer is no, how did Trump change?

        • LetsGOikz@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Justices need to die or retire in order for there to be a vacancy for a President to appoint a new Justice to. There was a vacancy at the start of Trump’s term due to a death during Obama’s that the Republicans refused to confirm an appointment for, and then there was a retirement (Kennedy) and death (RBG) during his term as well.

          • patchymoose@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            For anyone who isn’t familiar, RBG was a liberal Supreme Court justice that was getting very old, and a lot of people thought she should have retired during Obama’s term, where she could have been replaced by him. Some accuse her of stubbornness/hubris for not stepping down when it was “safe”, and point out that her whole legacy is now being undone.

            Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president, and nobody expected a Republican to win, including RBG.

            Anyway, I’m not taking a stance but just fleshing that out for anyone who is interested in the controversy.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president

              Just to also point out. This “common wisdom” is part of why Hillary lost and why a lot of people argued that RBG should have resigned during her term because the next Democratic President wasn’t a shoe-in, and people couldn’t just rely on that.

              People also seem to forget that both a Bush and a Clinton were running in 2016 and in a way, Trump being elected was a initially a rejection of “political dynasties” as Presidencies (which then immediately turned to his followers wanting him as a forever king, but that’s a different issue entirely). I had a Bush or a Clinton as President for twenty years of my life (roughly a third of the average lifespan for a US citizen). From my youth until I was no longer considered a youth, well into adulthood. I remember being frustrated at being faced with both a Bush and a Clinton in the primaries. I know lots of other people, on both sides of the aisle, did too. Nobody wanted more of the same (I know Hillary didn’t view herself as “more of the same” of her husband, and for good reason, but that wasn’t common opinion).

              The entire thing about it being “common wisdom” was spoken from a position of privilege by elite Democrats and ignoring that common people weren’t every excited about either Bush or Clinton but Clinton got shoehorned in anyway while Bush had his “please clap” moment. It’s not a shoe-in if you have to use a shoehorn, mind you.

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That says nothing about the existence or lack of a deity, only that if there is one he’s a HUGE piece of shit.

  • Kururin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unless the dems take back court we would be all living through a nightmare.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe Hilldawg could have campaigned in Wisconsin or taken seriously that even if she won the popular vote, that the Electoral College actually mattered.

      Reminder, she did win the popular vote. The majority did vote for her.

      Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.

      • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This has been the Democrat strategy for a long time now: make wonderful promises they don’t intend to keep, then blame everyone else when they don’t come to fruition. People keep voting for them despite this obvious fact, because Republicans make terrible promises that they actually try to keep.

        We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. The only winning move is to not play flip the table and play a different game.

        • Ado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just posted this thought before scrolling to see yours. Absolutely their strategy. They don’t actually give a fuck about us or the promises we expect them to keep.

      • Ado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The dem politician’s tactic. Pretend like you give a fuck (pretending bc they dont actually do the things to solve the issue), and then hold your constituency hostage during elections. Then continue to pretend like you give a fuck.

      • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I fail to see why you’re turning this around on her. She simply stated a fact that became reality.

        • Ado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This happens every election cycle. We do our job by electing them. They are privy to what will happen and fail to act when they have the power to do so. Who else do we blame? The universe?

          • Pacifist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If Hillary were president instead of Trump we wouldn’t see this stacked court.

            That has nothing to do with Obama’s promise or whatever.

            • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It has everything to do with Obama’s promise. By not following through on his promise to legislate it into law, the opportunity reverse the previous court decision was always a thing that could happen. Acting like them not taking the opportunity when they had it means its the fault of the voting public is pure bullshit.

              Instead, Obama used his political capital to pass Romneycare, which while it helped a lot of poor people, has made the insurance market even worse for many, who still have insurance that they can’t afford to actually use.

  • carbonprop@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow. The SCOTUS is firing through all sorts of shitty changes this week. They’re like the koolaid man on meth.

  • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    My “favorite” part of the majority ruling is how the loan forgiveness was struck down because it would harm the loan servicers. Not the government, not the people, the companies that have been contracted to collect the loans. That’s who SCOTUS is most concerned with. Should tell us everything we need to know about who’s interests are most important - capitalists

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only did they admit that MOHELA didn’t have standing, MOHELA itself said this wouldn’t impact them and they didn’t ask to be part of the case.

      Funny how it turns out that standing doesn’t matter when they don’t want it to.

      Kinda similar to the other case they dropped this morning, allowing LGBT discrimination… despite the fact that it turns out that no gay person ever actually asked this bakery to make them a cake for their wedding. When contacted, the man who purportedly sent the email claimed he never sent it and has been married to a woman for years. They don’t even give a shit if it’s made up they will sign off on it.

  • Randy_Bobandy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Who here still thinks republicans should be allowed to vote and hold elected office and write and pass laws?

    Show of hands?

    Great, everyone who raised their hand deserves this shit. Everyone wants to hate on Republicans, but when it comes to the voting booth, everyone defends them to the death. Well this is what you get. But DeMoCrAcY is more important than anything and everything, right?

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally think it doesn’t suddenly stop being “democracy” because you decided to make laws about disallowing people who are trying to dismantle democracy and replace it with authoritarianism to participate in democracy, because they’re obviously participating in bad faith.

      I don’t think you should lose voting rights for felonies. I think you should lose voting rights for trying to dismantle the state and remove hard-fought for citizens rights. But maybe I’m a crazy person for thinking that a lot of these people are pretty dumb motherfuckers, and for the pretty dumb motherfuckers, its pretty easy to prove that they’re acting in bad faith and to deny them voting rights until they get their ass educated accordingly.

      I’m with you, at this point it doesn’t make sense to let literal fucking terrorists be involved in democracy, because it’s already no longer democracy when they’re threatening you at the voting booth with their guns so you “vote right.”

    • stown@sedd.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Come on, you play right into their bullshit propaganda with that message. If they go low we don’t stoop to their level. We do not win elections by removing voting rights for those we disagree with - that is an authoritarian tactic.

      • BunkerBusterKeaton@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        there isn’t really any ‘nobility’ in ‘taking the high road’ while marginalized communities continue to get owned and killed. Trans kids are being targeted, women are being targeted, BIPOC are being targeted.

        what good is civility? authoritarian leftism is the only way to get results

  • wwaxwork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Friendly reminder Biden lost the battle but he hasn’t lost the war. He is currently working out an income related savings plan and doing a hail mary long shot roundabout come in the back door play using the Authority he has from the Higher Education Act to create debt forgiveness regulation. He’s still out there trying, though anything through the Dept of Education will take a while because of how policy works there.

  • LeZero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dont forget to thank RBG, who refused to retire under Obama for some fucking reason, only to get owned by COVID after officiating a wedding for some dumb liberals (while having an immune system shredded by cancer)

    Well it gave us the funniest trump interview imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knlJWu815C0

    • Empyreus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there is a minimum age in government, there needs to be a maximum. I’m over these 70 year olds running things.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Downvoted by people who refuse to look at when Democrats make stupid decisions that fuck us.

      I thought Lemmy was supposed to be full of tankies, not milquetoast centrist capitalist apologists…

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like when Dems had congress and the presidency but refused to make law to defend abortion saying the supreme court wouldn’t overrule it. Oopsy poopsy.

      • LeZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They can downvote away, I will never not shit on Ginsberg (also libtards infect spaces just like right wingers)

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Roe, Affirmative Action, LGBTQ protections, this is why you should vote in every election, including (perhaps especially) midterm elections. It’s the composition of Congress that makes these things happen, and you can’t pass on voting if you want to prevent it.

  • ramblechat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t have kids but am perfectly happy to pay more tax to make education free or cheaper. How can anyone argue that a less educated society is better? The more people that can experience higher education is plainly a good thing. There could be someone out there who could make a medical or technological breakthrough but doesn’t get the chance because they can’t afford to go to college.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the main argument is that this isn’t the way to go about that. The universities are totally out of control and need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable before we just start handing them public funding like this.

      • DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I think this move is only going to hurt people in the short run, it was just asking for further dive in a recession, I do agree with this sentiment of it.

        Tuition prices are absolutely insane. Colleges and universities are spending money on ridiculous nonsense, and that needs to be reigned in severely before Just throwing billions more taxpayer dollars at them.

        That said, these funds weren’t going to the universities. They were going to the banks, so cutting this off isn’t going to influence tuition rates in any way.

      • wslack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable

        How? Students are choosing more expensive places. The market is driving this.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t really think anyone in the government has a good solution for this, do they?

        Remove the available money? Only the rich go to college. Add more money? The prices go up.

        You could try regulating it, but then you just get colleges that refuse to accept government money, while simultaneously asking for the same amount.

        I’m sure someone has a solution that would work, but it’s not anyone with the power to implement it, that’s for sure.

        • freo3579@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          just make public universities cheaper, private sector will feel the competition and lower prices.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I honestly don’t think so. Private universities are already more expensive, why would they care if that gap widened more?

  • drewisawesome14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hope y’all are ready for another once in a lifetime market crash.

    Prices still haven’t gone down from the pandemic era but wages have stayed stagnant. People are barely getting by as it is, but now they have another 2-600 monthly bill added on top of everything else?

    Guess we didn’t learn a thing from 2008.

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Vote! Encourage those around you to vote. Help drive someone to the polls. If you know a young person who’s never voted, get them to vote.

    Don’t care who they vote for, just get them to the ballot box.

    The more people vote, the better things turn out for the majority.