Quo Vadis GOP?

[The Minsky Moment]

There is nothing counterintuitive about there being far more white majority counties in most states than the percentage of total white pops in the state because whites in the 21st century are over represented in rural areas (which make up a disproportionate number of counties).   But that should not hold for equal pop Congressional districts unless some funny business is afoot.

[DGuller]

But that should not hold for equal pop Congressional districts unless some funny business is afoot.

Is this a precise statement or a figurative one?

[Admiral Yi]

Of course it was, I am not as foul mouthed as Seedy, but I do sometimes like to stir the fire.

So you like to throw shit then object when people point out that you're throwing shit.

The battle between truth and being on the right side is a recurring theme on Languish, particularly when it comes to identity politics.

And the people who support the right side often feel the need to denigrate those who are more interested in truth.

I have noticed this is not symmetrical.

[The Minsky Moment]

But that should not hold for equal pop Congressional districts unless some funny business is afoot.

Is this a precise statement or a figurative one?

It's a literal statement about a comedy related enterpise located on my feet.

[DGuller]

I was trying to clarify in order to know whether it was worthwhile to disprove that statement of yours.  I guess if it was meant to be a joke, then it's not falsifiable.

[The Larch]

In other news, somehow related to the comment somebody (Valmy?) made a couple of pages back about the power of GOP at the local level in school districts and state assemblies:

'Woke,' 'multiculturalism,' 'equity': Wisconsin GOP proposes banning words from schools

The Wisconsin Assembly passed legislation on a party-line vote Tuesday that would bar public schools from teaching critical race theory, the latest Republican-controlled legislative chamber to take action on a culture war issue that erupted in school board meetings around the country this summer.

The measure mirrors efforts in other states to block teachers from instructing students on concepts of racial injustice or inherent bias. 

But in testimony before a Wisconsin Assembly committee considering the bill in August, one of the measure's lead authors went farther than in other states, spelling out specific words that would be barred from the classroom.

"It has come to our attention, and to some of the people who traveled here to Madison today, that a growing number of school districts are teaching material that attempts to redress the injustice of racism and sexism by employing racism and sexism, as well as promoting psychological distress in students based on these immutable characteristics," state Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R) said of his bill. "No one should have to undergo the humiliation of being told that they are inferior to someone else. We are all members of the human race."

Wichgers, who represents Muskego in the legislature, attached an addendum to his legislation that included a list of "terms and concepts" that would violate the bill if it became law.

Among those words: "Woke," "whiteness," "White supremacy," "structural bias," "structural racism," "systemic bias" and "systemic racism." The bill would also bar "abolitionist teaching," in a state that sent more than 91,000 soldiers to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War.

The list of barred words or concepts includes "equity," "inclusivity education," "multiculturalism" and "patriarchy," as well as "social justice" and "cultural awareness."

The measure would apply to both instruction provided to students in the classroom as well as training provided to school employees.

It would also require school boards to post curricula to its own websites, and to specific school websites if a school has one. School districts that do not comply would lose 10 percent of their share of state funding. Parents or guardians of students in a school that violates the bill by teaching critical race theory or its related concepts would be allowed to sue in state circuit court.

The proposal has virtually no chance of becoming law: It passed the Assembly on a party line vote, and even if it clears the Senate, it would almost certainly be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers (D), himself a former superintendent of public instruction.

[garbon]

Equity? That seems rather broad.

[The Larch]

Equity? That seems rather broad.

I saw the full list of proposed banned words on Twitter and it was absurdly long. 

[Sheilbh]

Equity? That seems rather broad.

Law students of the world unite to ban equity.

Edit: Also I don't know how you'd teach classic high school English texts like, say, To Kill A Mockingbird or Mrs Dalloway etc without some of those concepts.

[grumbler]

Edit: Also I don't know how you'd teach classic high school English texts like, say, To Kill A Mockingbird or Mrs Dalloway etc without some of those concepts.

Why would the culture warriors worry about that?  The poorer a person's education, the more likely they are to buy into the culture warfare mentality.

[The Minsky Moment]

I was trying to clarify in order to know whether it was worthwhile to disprove that statement of yours.  I guess if it was meant to be a joke, then it's not falsifiable.

To be clear, for all future purposes, virtually nothing I post here that contains a conclusion, opinion or judgment is intended to be taken as the result of a careful, rigorous. methodologically sound, and meticulously proofed analysis. Assume unless it is specifically said otherwise it is quick take based on incomplete information and ad hoc judgment.

I assumed that was a given considering the nature of the platform and forum but I suppose one should never assume.

[garbon]

[The Minsky Moment]

Equity? That seems rather broad.

Anyone paying attention the last four years would know the GOP is pro debt.

[DGuller]

I was trying to clarify in order to know whether it was worthwhile to disprove that statement of yours.  I guess if it was meant to be a joke, then it's not falsifiable.

To be clear, for all future purposes, virtually nothing I post here that contains a conclusion, opinion or judgment is intended to be taken as the result of a careful, rigorous. methodologically sound, and meticulously proofed analysis. Assume unless it is specifically said otherwise it is quick take based on incomplete information and ad hoc judgment.

I assumed that was a given considering the nature of the platform and forum but I suppose one should never assume.

Okay, that's fine, but that's not the issue.  I don't begrudge people for doing quick takes on matters that are not within their expertise.  I definitely do not begrudge them if they get something wrong in their quick take, even after 15+ years of experience I do that sometimes as well.

What I do begrudge are certain kinds of reactions when I point out that their quick takes are wrong or at least materially incomplete.  Instead of going "oh, I never thought about it that way" or, "I find it hard to believe, can you expound on why that is", they dig in and double down on their wrong quick take, probably because that conclusion is useful to them.  That's contemptible behavior for anyone, expert or not.

[The Minsky Moment]

The list of bad words is much more extensive BTW: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/hearing_testimony_and_materials/2021/ab411/ab0411_2021_08_11.pdf, and it includes "racial prejudice".    It also includes "hegemony" so teachers be real careful if you are talking about the the Peloponnesian War