this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32286 readers
571 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with you in theory, but striking down AA without a better solution in place is bad. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmao is reading comprehension not your thing? Because my meaning was very clear and not at all racist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Why does this make it harder for the poor to access higher education? A debt forgiveness will make current debtors less burdened but will probably make it more expensive for new applicants. Isn't it the other way around?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

But the forgiven PPP loans are A-OK, right? Fuck this shit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

But sure, it's our fault, Hilldawg, because we didn't vote hard enough.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 to 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Fuck Trump and his supreme court. We're going to be suffering the effects of Republican stupidity for the next 40 years.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

A very poor application of standing doctrine. Kagan cuts right to the heart of it when she asks "Where is MOHELA" as well as if anyone honestly thinks Missouri is there over MOHELA losing some fees. Heck, MOHELA wanted nothing to do with the suit and that the payments Missouri claimed MOHELA made back actually were never paid.

Then the recurrence of the "major questions doctrine," this invented idea that lets them throw out the plain text when they disagree.

That said, I did disagree with the plan. It was poorly targeted, hitting wealthier grads that still had loans, while ignoring poor people that never went in the first place, or were frugal and had limited loans. As someone that saw the Great Recession hit just after graduation, I wonder where my relief was from that emergency, as my lifetime earning took a massive hit, all while still having to pay my loans, with not so much as a payment pause or interest forbearance. To me, it was a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for the midterm. Had it any other goal, Biden wouldn't have waited so long.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another W for capitalism, another L for the worker class.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

most of what's happening in todays world is not a W for capitalism. Modern conservative thoughts on capitalism have long abandoned the necessary regulation of free markets we enforced for 2 centuries. capitalism only works if markets continually divide winners at the top. If you don't bust monopolies then capitalism begins to rapidly break down. We've known that for a long time and only recently stopped. You lose all the benefits of capitalism without that feature. What we have in America isn't capitalism really at all anymore. This whole concept that the government has no role in capitalism and free markets will always correct themselves is a myth and we've known that since before America. John Locke knew that he was a tax collector for the english crown.