A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[DonaldD]

It is a minor problem for most people, which is why the majority have a vital function in protecting the at-risk minority, by acquiring immunity. That was the basic thrust of my post.
micron filtration in situations where self-isolation is not possible. I have not heard a word from the CDC on that fact, nor does an emphasis on the at-risk demographic burn through the CDC clutter of general alarm.

So much incorrect information to unpack here..

• "a minor problem for most people" - this is literally true of every pandemic.  The 1918 pandemic, using worst case mortality of 20%, still could be characterized as you did here. Of course we are seeing far more people than have died experiencing long term side effects of the infection, and we don't yet have enough data on long term mortality due to infection after-effects.  But sure, it's a minor problem for most...
  
• "At risk minority" - yes, risk increases by age, and by co-morbidities, but COVID-19 is still more deadly to anybody over the age of 20 than a bad seasonal flu. The assumption that you can isolate people over the age of 55, or people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity,  from the rest of the population for long periods of time is arguably for more economically damaging than focussed six week shutdowns of smaller areas.
• "by acquiring immunity" - we are not remotely near having any type of herd immunity effect.  Also, herd immunity effects do not preclude flareups, each of which would put at-risk people back in danger according to your philosophy.  To get an idea of how far away the USA is from acquiring any type of herd immunity effects, see the seroprevalence survey data being accumulated by the CDC.  New York city is up around 17%.  The remaining areas, Philadelphia, south Florida, etc, are all down below 6%.  Given that observable herd effects would only kick in around 50%, and higher rates would be needed to significantly affect spread, you're looking at increasing infection rates by a factor of 10 for most of the country.

[wmLambert]

...but COVID-19 is still more deadly to anybody over the age of 20 than a bad seasonal flu.

Does that offset the suicides and mental health issues that occur because of the lock-down? Dies that negate the loss of survival income and a future?

[yossarian22c]

“Not that conservatives are entirely to blame, of course, since even left-leaning people seem to ignore guidelines (as far as I can see anecdotally) all the time. Basically no one cares enough, so everyone is making their own bed.“

I slightly disagree, but not with your anecdotal observation. It is true that individuals with high-risk factors cannot be forced to self-isolate. They can, however, be made aware of relatively inexpensive masks which are virtually 100% efficient at sub-5 micron filtration in situations where self-isolation is not possible. I have not heard a word from the CDC on that fact, nor does an emphasis on the at-risk demographic burn through the CDC clutter of general alarm.

Wow, if only there were enough of those relatively inexpensive masks for everyone in America over the age of 55, with high blood pressure, with asthma, diabetes, or obesity. Its almost like the president could have used the DPA to make sure they were readily available to all people with a risk factor.

[noel c.]

Donald,

“So much incorrect information to unpack here.. “

If you can keep this substantive, it might turn into a real discussion. Try hard.

“... ‘a minor problem for most people’ - this is literally true of every pandemic.  The 1918 pandemic, using worst case mortality of 20%, still could be characterized as you did here. Of course we are seeing far more people than have died experiencing long term side effects of the infection, and we don't yet have enough data on long term mortality due to infection after-effects.  But sure, it's a minor problem for most... “

Unlike the 1918 epidemic, this infection targets a discrete demographic minority that can be shielded. You are right that COVID-19 side effects have been observed in those severely effected, roughly 10-15% of total recorded cases. In these people prolonged symptoms of fatigue, and disorientation, are the most common after effects. What the actual percentage of severe COVID-19 infections is remains uncertain due to significant underreporting of mild cases.

The lungs, heart, gut, kidneys, blood vessels, and nervous system may be affected due to immune response induced inflammation. This is the only issue that gives me pause, because there is a July 20th German study that reported myocardial inflammation in 60% of those diagnosed at the hospital, resulting in permanent left ventricle wall thickening/scarring. The study needs to be repeated, and to my knowledge nobody has.

“ ‘At risk minority’ - yes, risk increases by age, and by co-morbidities, but COVID-19 is still more deadly to anybody over the age of 20 than a bad seasonal flu. The assumption that you can isolate people over the age of 55, or people with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity,  from the rest of the population for long periods of time is arguably for more economically damaging than focussed six week shutdowns of smaller areas.”

You can not have it both ways. Is your priority saving lives, or casting discriminatory caution aside in workforce composition? Let me guess; you are “obese, diabetic, hypertensive, over 55, and “arguably” irreplaceable?

" ‘by acquiring immunity’ - we are not remotely near having any type of herd immunity effect.“

Have you read the Wall Street article yet?

“Also, herd immunity effects do not preclude flareups, each of which would put at-risk people back in danger according to your philosophy.”

“My philosophy”, as you mischaracterize statements made by me on this forum, anticipates SARS-CoV-2 genetic drift into evolutionary oblivion... just like its cousin SARS-CoV-1. Now it could evolve into something even more virulent, but the typical path of virus recombination leads to diminished virulency, not higher.

“To get an idea of how far away the USA is from acquiring any type of herd immunity effects, see the seroprevalence survey data being accumulated by the CDC.  New York city is up around 17%.  The remaining areas, Philadelphia, south Florida, etc, are all down below 6%.  Given that observable herd effects would only kick in around 50%, and higher rates would be needed to significantly affect spread, you're looking at increasing infection rates by a factor of 10 for most of the country.“

You would really benefit from reading the WSJ article, but your reasoning is basically correct. My only criticism is that you seem to be relying upon a subtext of emotional equivocation. The inherent implication is that SARS-CoV-2 is a serious health matter for the “herd”. If instead you stated;“common-cold infection rates would need to increase by a factor of 10 for most of the country”... in order to protect our vulnerable population, your apprehension would sound silly. Have you been infected yet?

Time estimates for distribution-ready vaccine are anywhere from six to twelve months out based upon what I am reading. Do you want to double the death total before a vaccine is available, or contribute to a solution?

Y-22,

“Wow, if only there were enough of those relatively inexpensive masks for everyone in America over the age of 55, with high blood pressure, with asthma, diabetes, or obesity. Its almost like the president could have used the DPA to make sure they were readily available to all people with a risk factor.”

I doubt that Trump has the slightest idea they exist, but the CDC knows. :

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-Particulate-Respirator-8233-N100-20-ea-Case/?N=5002385+3294776421&rt=rud

[DonaldD]

...but you don’t see them either.  They say “boy - what happened?  what was that? It’s gone.  It’s here.  There it is.  I hear a noise over there… where is it? It’s gone - It’s over there.” But it’s uhhh… hydrosonic.  I call it super-duper.

National defence as the love child of a dental hygienist and a 6 year old.

[DonaldD]

Unlike the 1918 epidemic, this infection targets a discrete demographic minority that can be shielded.

This is patently false. You're probably thinking of age, but if so, even those in their teens and 20s are twice as likely to die from a case of COVID-19 as from a case of influenza, and that is not counting the long term side effects of COVID-19 which are often far more serious than from influenza.  Once you get in the 40s and above age group, you're looking at death rates that are orders of magnitude higher for COVID-19, with  death rates above 1% even for those in their 50s.

Isolating those people would require isolating more than 1/3 of the actively employed people in the country, for a long period of time.  Which will be impossible for many since they will be the parents of younger people living in the same homes.

[wmLambert]

...National defence as the love child of a dental hygienist and a 6 year old.

You mean the National Defense hero who righted the ship of state, restored the failing military, rescued the VA, earned several Nobel Peace Prizes for real action and not just talk? That Orange man?

Sheesh. Talk about projection.

[DonaldD]

...earned several Nobel Peace Prizes for real action and not just talk?

How many Nobel prizes are awarded a year?  For which years did Trump win?

Here's a hint
Nobel Peace Prizes awarded
2020: to be announced Friday 9 October 2020
2019: Abay Ahmed Ali
2018: Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad
2017: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
2016: Juan Manuel Santos

[noel c.]

Donald,

“This is patently false. You're probably thinking of age, but if so, even those in their teens and 20s are twice as likely to die from a case of COVID-19 as from a case of influenza, and that is not counting the long term side effects of COVID-19 which are often far more serious than from influenza.  Once you get in the 40s and above age group, you're looking at death rates that are orders of magnitude higher for COVID-19, with  death rates above 1% even for those in their 50s.“

This is “patently false”, and typically DD. Without specifying which “flu” you are using as a benchmark, this quasi-statistic could only have emerged from anal territory. What flu are you talking about? If I give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you are referring to the 2019-2020 flu strain, you are still wrong.

- CDC recorded child deaths from COVID-19

2020 = 127

- CDC recorded child deaths from flu

2019-2020 = 188

“Isolating those people would retire isolating more than 1/3 of the actively employed people in the country, for a long period of time.  Which will be impossible for many since they will be the parents of younger people living in the same homes.“

This reminds me of your Canadian/American population-density calculation. United States workers 65, and over, constitute 6.6% of the workforce. If we pull the “vulnerable” age down artificially to 55 (to force the plausibility of your assertion), the number is 23%.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.pdf

I am encouraged that you are, intriguingly, beginning to sound like Trump.

[TheDrake]

‘And These Are My Nobel Peace Prizes,’ Says Trump, Gesturing Toward Room Of Plastic Trophies

[DonaldD]

- CDC recorded child deaths from COVID-19

2020 = 127

- CDC recorded child deaths from flu

2019-2020 = 188

Since I didn't state anything about children, unless you consider those older than 20 as children, your response is a complete non-sequitur.

You claimed to be able to isolate a particularly susceptible subgroup while letting the rest of society infect themselves in order to create herd immunity. You implied that this subgroup is age defined, but please, confirm whether that is not the case.

If it is the case, I just illustrated that even those who are between 20 and 30 years of age have a higher (roughly double)  fatality rate than for an average influenza.  I also showed that once you get above forty, it gets even worse, and for those aged 50 and above, you are getting into fatality rates of 1 in 100.

Maybe you consider 1/100 fatality rates as acceptable.  Most people think that kind of rate would be a crisis.  To get to your herd immunity level (say, 60% seroprevalence rate) without isolating those between 50 and 65 would lead to the deaths of roughly (60% infected rate with mortality of 1.2/100 cases multiplied by a population of 62M) about 450,000 people.  That would be on top of all those other people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who would die (assuming perfect isolation of those over 65, none of them would die, of course).

And yes, we get that you don't understand where Canadians live, nor why your population density 'calculation' was stupid.   We even sympathize with your inability.  But reminding everybody how you don't understand that Canadians live just as cheek to jowl as those in the USA is not a good look for you.

[noel c.]

DD,

1st- “Once you get in the 40s and above age group, you're looking at death rates that are orders of magnitude higher for COVID-19,... “

2nd- “If it is the case, I just illustrated that even those who are between 20 and 30 years of age have a higher (roughly double)  fatality rate than for an average influenza.  I also showed that once you get above forty, it gets even worse, and for those aged 50 and above, you are getting into fatality rates of 1 in 100.“

I do not believe that you know what “an order of magnitude“ is.

“Since I didn't state anything about children, unless you consider those older than 20 as children, your response is a complete non-sequitur.”

I doubt anyone reading this would consider it a non-sequitur.

“You claimed to be able to isolate a particularly susceptible subgroup while letting the rest of society infect themselves in order to create herd immunity. You implied that this subgroup is age defined, but please, confirm whether that is not the case.“

Not exclusively, but yes, primarily that is the case. You must have deduced as much when you assumed an age criteria in my behalf. I followed your lead with the 6.6% at the upper age bracket of labor statistics. I smell a “yes, but... “ coming, did you want me to reiterate additional CDC conditions?

“Maybe you consider 1/100 fatality rates as acceptable.  Most people think that kind of rate would be a crisis.”

I see the question as a plea for me to entertain an inane diversion. What I am proposing has zero impact upon those falling outside of CDC designated risk groups. Until a vaccine is available, the herd members are, to appropriate Fenring’s phrase; “... going to make their own beds.”.

“To get to your herd immunity level (say, 60% seroprevalence rate) without isolating those between 50 and 65 would lead to the deaths of roughly (60% infected rate with mortality of 1.2/100 cases multiplied by a population of 62M) about 450,000 people.”

I have a suspicion that you are one of those. If you must work, get a box of 3M N-100s. They are available on Amazon for $10.70 each. If that is too stiff for you, buy a non-disposable HEPA respirator. I have seen them for as cheap as $20, but comfort is a problem over long periods. More than that, I can not help you. Make your own bed.

“That would be on top of all those other people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who would die (assuming perfect isolation of those over 65, none of them would die, of course).”

Same answer Donald. The virus doesn’t just kill people just because I suggest others stay home. It is flattering that you think so though.

“And yes, we get that you don't understand where Canadians live, nor why your population density 'calculation' was stupid.   We even sympathize with your inability.  But reminding everybody how you don't understand that Canadians live just as cheek to jowl as those in the USA is not a good look for you.“

You were eager to do the math DD. Why look so enthusiastically foolish?

[DonaldD]

So, it would seem you are perfectly fine sacrificing 450,000 people in the 50-65 year range, and also good with segregating everybody above 65 from the rest of their families for many months while the virus spreads through the rest of society. 

You are also good with sacrificing at least as many people in the 0-49 year range, and 'leakage' into the quarantined elderly, for this grand experiment - lets's call it a cool million total.  I guess you can make that argument, and the rest of society can look at your proposal and either accept it or reject it.

[DonaldD]

As for your inability to understand population density, TheDaemon tried to help you out a few days ago, but it didn't seem to have any effect:

Donald,

Look at my references, and do the math. Canada, and the U.S, are not even close to equal in average population density, which you did make a claim for.

You also cited a, largely underpopulated, shared U.S. border for some reason. What was that about? Even large Canadian cities are more isolated than U.S. cities. Care to elaborate on your reasoning?

Eh... Not so much in Ontario and Quebec, but valid enough for much of the rest of Canada. And your population density statistic is misleading for both the US and Canada, but more-so for Canada.

The overwhelming majority of the Canadian population lives within 300 miles of their southern US/Canada border(not to be confused with their Alaskan one).

So yeah, Canada controls a LOT of land, but for most of that land, next to nobody is out there.

The reality is that as a % of population, Canadians are more likely to be living in or near to a large urban area with a population in excess of 100,000 people. While the United States is a lot more dispersed on that, still having entire states with cities with populations under that number.

I also didn't bother correcting this at the time, but the shared US border region is the only non-sparsely populated part of the country - where essentially everybody lives.  That you didn't understand this very basic point meant you couldn't follow any argument on the topic

[wmLambert]

Noel C. is correct that Canadian cities are more isolated than US cities. In my area, Windsor, Ontario is south of the US border, but if you cross the river, the city is less densely populated than Detroit, just the other side of the border. We used to visit there and go to their farmer's market, and eat at some of the great restaurants, but the whole city is only about 200,000. They consider themselves a suburb of Detroit, but Detroit hardly notices them. Go outside of Windsor and you're in for a boring long drive to Niagara Falls, with virtually nothing inbetween.

[noel c.]

DD,

“So, it would seem you are perfectly fine sacrificing 450,000 people in the 50-65 year range, and also good with segregating everybody above 65 from the rest of their families for many months while the virus spreads through the rest of society.“ 

Pretty heady stuff; No Donald, I have told you how to avoid the risk of killing yourself under CDC recommendations. Those guidelines will definitely generate herd immunity, and perhaps that is by design. It worked fine for me. Regarding the 65 and above group, yes; I want them to live, and suffer. If they get to play around at home while the rest of the world works, it’s only fair, wouldn’t you agree?

“You are also good with sacrificing at least as many people in the 0-49 year range, and 'leakage' into the quarantined elderly, for this grand experiment - lets's call it a cool million total.  I guess you can make that argument, and the rest of society can look at your proposal and either accept it or reject it.”

You are already complicit in a herd immunity protocol. Please reveal; what are you going to do about it now that you know? The alternatives are immunity, or prophylactic sterility. You choose. If you elect for the latter, then you remain a disease vector for as long as SARS-CoV-2 stays virulent, or a vaccine remains conceptual. Therefore, you are ethically obligated to wear a HEPA grade respirator, without an exhaust valve, until SARS-CoV-2 is declared extinct, or accept responsibility for killing some of those 65 year olds. Honestly, given how little thought you have applied to the issue, I venture to guess that you are one of those people Fenring was alluding to.that really doesn’t care in the final analysis.

“As for your inability to understand population density, TheDaemon tried to help you out a few days ago, but it didn't seem to have any effect:“

Yes, I just found where Daemon got it; “90 percent of Canadians live within 150 miles of the US border.” That still does not tell me what effective population density is.

Did he find anything to help you with your math?

[DonaldD]

The racist-and-sexist in chief signs executive order prohibiting government contractors from providing diversity training.  Go low, Mr. President, go low!

A few weeks ago, I BANNED efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based ideologies. Today, I've expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don’t, there’s nothing in it for you!

[TheDeamon]

The racist-and-sexist in chief signs executive order prohibiting government contractors from providing diversity training.  Go low, Mr. President, go low!

A few weeks ago, I BANNED efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based ideologies. Today, I've expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don’t, there’s nothing in it for you!

Diversity Training is still allowed. What is not allowed is "Critical Race Theory" which is probably a good thing. It might in vogue with leftist activists in the Universities and beyond, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a good thing.

[Wayward Son]

Here's the text of the executive order, for discussion purposes.

[TheDeamon]

Here's the text of the executive order, for discussion purposes.

...

Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.

This destructive ideology is grounded in misrepresentations of our country’s history and its role in the world. Although presented as new and revolutionary, they resurrect the discredited notions of the nineteenth century’s apologists for slavery who, like President Lincoln’s rival Stephen A. Douglas, maintained that our government “was made on the white basis” “by white men, for the benefit of white men.” Our Founding documents rejected these racialized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War. Yet they are now being repackaged and sold as cutting-edge insights. They are designed to divide us and to prevent us from uniting as one people in pursuit of one common destiny for our great country.

...

This destructive ideology is grounded in misrepresentations of our country’s history and its role in the world. Although presented as new and revolutionary, they resurrect the discredited notions of the nineteenth century’s apologists for slavery who, like President Lincoln’s rival Stephen A. Douglas, maintained that our government “was made on the white basis” “by white men, for the benefit of white men.” Our Founding documents rejected these racialized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War. Yet they are now being repackaged and sold as cutting-edge insights. They are designed to divide us and to prevent us from uniting as one people in pursuit of one common destiny for our great country.

Unfortunately, this malign ideology is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of our country. Instructors and materials teaching that men and members of certain races, as well as our most venerable institutions, are inherently sexist and racist are appearing in workplace diversity trainings across the country, even in components of the Federal Government and among Federal contractors. For example, the Department of the Treasury recently held a seminar that promoted arguments that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism,” and that instructed small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid “narratives” that Americans should “be more color-blind” or “let people’s skills and personalities be what differentiates them.”

Training materials from Argonne National Laboratories, a Federal entity, stated that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America” and described statements like “color blindness” and the “meritocracy” as “actions of bias.”

Materials from Sandia National Laboratories, also a Federal entity, for non-minority males stated that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” was a characteristic of “white male,” and asked those present to “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other.

The Sandia example is particularly egregious in my view. Anybody who supports such training needs to be taken out back to visit the woodshed.

Also referenced was this from the Smithsonian:
Via the Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20200715153725/https://nmaahc.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/image_caption/public/images/captioned/whiteculture_info_1.png?itok=tO7RMVFi

[TheDrake]

The racist-and-sexist in chief signs executive order prohibiting government contractors from providing diversity training.  Go low, Mr. President, go low!

A few weeks ago, I BANNED efforts to indoctrinate government employees with divisive and harmful sex and race-based ideologies. Today, I've expanded that ban to people and companies that do business with our Country, the United States Military, Government Contractors, and Grantees. Americans should be taught to take PRIDE in our Great Country, and if you don’t, there’s nothing in it for you!

Diversity Training is still allowed. What is not allowed is "Critical Race Theory" which is probably a good thing. It might in vogue with leftist activists in the Universities and beyond, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a good thing.

Isn't it dangerous for the government to exercise control on how a private business chooses to train their employees?

[TheDeamon]

Diversity Training is still allowed. What is not allowed is "Critical Race Theory" which is probably a good thing. It might in vogue with leftist activists in the Universities and beyond, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a good thing.

Isn't it dangerous for the government to exercise control on how a private business chooses to train their employees?

Government Contractors moves things into a very large and significant grey zone. And we've been doing exactly that in a lot of ways for decades as it relates to said contractors.

Edit to add: The thing that is unique about this specific case is it is a mandate for "negative training" rather than mandating more training for those performing tasks under contract for the Government.

[rightleft22]

Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.

That is a difficult statement to unpack.  The line "racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status" could be read as divisive. The common status is clearly the norm while those identities that feel they are being discriminated against are coming from a place to trying to make their identities important more important then the norm.  Clever language but I think a miss representation of those seeking equality.

A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

[TheDeamon]

Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.

That is a difficult statement to unpack.  The line "racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status" could be read as divisive. The common status is clearly the norm while those identities that feel they are being discriminated against are coming from a place to trying to make their identities important more important then the norm.  Clever language but I think a miss representation of those seeking equality.

A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

I'd tend to hew towards this:

Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order, the phrase:

(a) “Divisive concepts” means the concepts that (1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex; (2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; (3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; (4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex; (5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex; (6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex; (7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex; (8) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or (9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

[rightleft22]

“Divisive concepts” means the concepts that
(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
( any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

Those are decisive concepts and its understandable that people would resist and fear such a version of "equality".

None of the people i know working towards equality hold them though and I personally find the list offensive and I wonder if not intentionally so.
(I'm not offended but suspect the list is intentionally a miss-characterization of equality movement)
I have heard some on the extreme end of things making such statements and I guess we live in a time with the extreme views = the views of all. 

That said the list is a great place to start a dialog if its could be constructive however I don't think we live in a movement that will allow for that.

[TheDeamon]

“Divisive concepts” means the concepts that
(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
(2) the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist;
(3) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
(4) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
(5) members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex;
(6) an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;
(7) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;
( any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex; or
(9) meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. The term “divisive concepts” also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating.

Those are decisive concepts and its understandable that people would resist and fear such a version of "equality".

None of the people i know working towards equality hold them though and I personally find the list offensive and I wonder if not intentionally so.
(I'm not offended but suspect the list is intentionally a miss-characterization of equality movement)
I have heard some on the extreme end of things making such statements and I guess we live in a time with the extreme views = the views of all. 

That said the list is a great place to start a dialog if its could be constructive however I don't think we live in a movement that will allow for that.

There are tweaks that could obviously be made to it, like item #2, I have no problem with claims of the system being historically racist and even sexist. It's a fact. I would disagree on the "fundamentally racist" side of things, as that is asserting everything was and continues to be racist.

There also is some room to work with regard to #3, although in broad strokes I agree with what was outlined. While working to make people aware of unconscious bias/racism/sexism is commendable, there is a fine line to walk on addressing that before you do end up moving into the domain of "everyone is racist" in that context provided by that line item.

[NobleHunter]

Definition number 2 is interesting though not particularly relevant to corporate diversity training. If it is mentioned, it's easily avoided by slight modifications to the training material.

What does fundamentally mean? The fundamental documents of the US--and Canada--were created by racists and sexists and endorsed a racist and sexist power structure. Racism and sexism have informed key moments in our history and resulted in racists and sexist decisions and actions. While great strides have been made in reducing racism and sexism in all aspects of society, they are still present and vociferously defended by prominent leaders and average citizens alike. Structural racism and sexism is still present in most major institutions. A major political party uses overt racism in order to attract voters. The other political party is certainly not free of racism either.

And yet. All those statements which apply to the present are rightfully seen as failings. That we haven't done away with racism and sexism as driving forces behind our politics and our society is seen as falling short of our imagined ideals. Certain radicals aside, we want a society free of racism and sexism. We may disagree on what that would look like and how to get there but it's still largely seen as a desirable goal. This is evident in how even reactionaries attempt to use the language of social justice to protect their power and privilege. They wish for their supporters to believe that a white male ruling class could be achieved without racism or sexism, as bizarrely as that sits with the rest of their rhetoric.

Is the US and Canada fundamentally racist? Perhaps, but not incurably so. The great strength of nationality based on ideology or common beliefs is that those things can change. Our nations don't have to be racist and sexist even if they started out that way; even if we've spent much of our histories promoting discrimination and oppression.  Though first we would have to recognize where we have fallen short of the ideals we want to live up to.

[wmLambert]

...How many Nobel prizes are awarded a year?  For which years did Trump win?

Don't be so foolish. I said, "Earned," not awarded. Obama did the opposite, didn't he?

[wmLambert]

...A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

Of all the many Christian friends who I know, none are like that. Did you just make him up as a strawman to denigrate?

However; I know many Democrat rank and file who behave just that way. For them, it is the "wink and nod." They know what is right, and expect their leaders to say all the right things - but also expect those same leaders to ignore their own words to give them what they want. It is "the end justifies the means" writ small.

[DonaldD]

Don't be so foolish. I said, "Earned," not awarded. Obama did the opposite, didn't he?

Oh, he "earned" them did he - what, only 2? Why not 20? Or a bazillion? 

[yossarian22c]

...A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

Of all the many Christian friends who I know, none are like that. Did you just make him up as a strawman to denigrate?

rightleft basically described a typical human failure. Wanting others to conform with them vs. them having to live in a society that doesn't fully support their values. Its not some hit job on Christians, its an observation of the human condition. Other than being a friend of rightleft you could replace Christian with any sufficiently large group of people and have an entirely true statement.

[yossarian22c]

Get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly, there'll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.

Wow. Get rid of the ballots and you'll have a continuation of power.

I get he's specifically referencing mail in ballots but those are legitimate ballots he's talking about getting rid of. I'm sure our local Trump whisperers will explain how this isn't actually as horrible as it actually is.

[rightleft22]

...A Christian friend of mine has not problem using Government to enforce his values on people that do not believe in the same thing. At the same time abhors the user of Government to impose values that go against his beliefs. Doing so he feels undermines his beliefs and discriminates against him.  its a odd contradiction that he is blind to.

Of all the many Christian friends who I know, none are like that. Did you just make him up as a strawman to denigrate?

I identified this friend as Christian as its the most import value and attachment to identity he holds. He is a good man and does his best to live up to his values. I admire him very much for living his truth. However, like most of us he is blind to the contradictions some of his views bring to light perhaps because his sense of identity is so attached the word Christian. His position on identity politics for instance does not take into account his own attachments to identity and perceived threats to that connection to identity.   

I see this disconnect within the Christian community because its the community I grew up in and consider home. I am very disappointing in how politicized belief has/is becoming.  It makes dialog really difficult.   

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“I get he's specifically referencing mail in ballots but those are legitimate ballots he's talking about getting rid of. I'm sure our local Trump whisperers will explain how this isn't actually as horrible as it actually is.”

You are begging the question.

I cannot think of any group that believes discarding “legitimate” ballots amounts to anything other than third-world banana republic politics, except possibly the 2000 Gore campaign. :

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/21/us/counting-vote-absentee-ballots-review-military-votes-florida-attorney-general.html

More to the point, why would anyone endorse adoption of procedures such as unsolicited mail-in ballots, that are virtually guaranteed to trigger post-election Supreme Court litigation, public violence, delegitimized political authority, and general interparty antipathy, unless those effects are desired outcomes?

Is it reasonable to conclude that some groups stand to benefit from electoral chaos?

[LetterRip]

More to the point, why would anyone endorse adoption of procedures such as unsolicited mail-in ballots

Because they don't want people to die trying to exercise their right to vote and there is no evidence of a serious risk of voter fraud?
Your lack of reasoning ability is absolutely beyond belief.  In person voting is risky during a major pandemic.  So politicians who care about their voters want to provide a means for them to vote that won't risk them getting infected.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“I get he's specifically referencing mail in ballots but those are legitimate ballots he's talking about getting rid of. I'm sure our local Trump whisperers will explain how this isn't actually as horrible as it actually is.”

You are begging the question.

More to the point, why would anyone endorse adoption of procedures such as unsolicited mail-in ballots, that are virtually guaranteed to trigger post-election Supreme Court litigation, public violence, delegitimized political authority, and general interparty antipathy, unless those effects are desired outcomes?

Is it reasonable to conclude that some groups stand to benefit from electoral chaos?

Why would states opting for an all mail in election in the midst of a pandemic trigger all those things? 5 states already conduct all their elections that way and basically every state had procedures for how to vote by mail in place.

Is Trump only going to contest the vote totals in states that newly opted into all mail in voting? That's only about 5 states and I think Nevada is the only one that is a swing state.

I'm guessing he challenges mail in voting in every swing state that changes the winner from Trump to Biden. Which based on how people are saying they are going to vote if Biden wins a swing state it will be because of mail in votes.

So where do you stand? Based on your previous statement you seem to support counting these votes. Please answer these questions simply and honestly now.

1) Do you understand Trump is likely to be ahead in most swing states on election night?
2) Do you understand the mail in votes are likely to go 2-1 for Biden and many of those election night leads are going to disappear and flip to Biden wins?
3) Do you understand that in almost all of those states they will not be conducting an all mail in election for the first time?
4) Are you going to call for Biden to concede prior to the mail in ballots being counted?

[TheDrake]

Why did states mandate mail in ballots PRIOR to covid? Because the exercise of your most fundamental right as a citizen shouldn't be dependent on waiting in line for hours at some polling stations, paying for child care, getting time off from your multiple jobs, or getting a ride.

[noel c.]

LR,

“Because they don't want people to die trying to exercise their right to vote... “

So it is preferable to end up “dying” in protest of a delegitimized vote in consequence to violent public gatherings?

“... and there is no evidence of a serious risk of voter fraud?”

There is no precedent to create an evidentiary baseline for your assertion, but only someone oblivious to negative results ranging from undue pressure, to deceased voter participation, would make such a claim.

“Your lack of reasoning ability is absolutely beyond belief.“

Try me LR, by first positing a reasonable argument.
 
“In person voting is risky during a major pandemic.“

There is nothing “risky” about the bad social outcome everyone is apparently anticipating, it is guaranteed. What is not assured is a health risk resulting from in-person voting... unless you are hopelessly ignorant regarding prophylactic options.

“So politicians who care about their voters want to provide a means for them to vote that won't risk them getting infected.“

Are these the same politicians who support or tolerate BLM, and Antifa, rallies, and riots?

Y-22,

“Why would states opting for an all mail in election in the midst of a pandemic trigger all those things?“

I am referencing both unsolicited ballots, and ballots generated through unsolicited mail-in ballot request forms, as in North Carolina. Both mail-in system features invite outright voter fraud, or voter intimidation. Our traditional system of casting the “secret ballot“ negates those possibilities, and for precisely those reasons.

My list of social conflicts, resulting from implementation of the mail-in voting, is copied from DD’s related thread post, he could be wrong, but on this issue I agree with him. Feel at liberty to disregard it if you believe that an uncertain voting outcome will not result in serious social consequences. There seems to be a consensus across political divides that questions of election legitimacy will attend the use of mail-in ballots.

“5 states already conduct all their elections that way and basically every state had procedures for how to vote by mail in place.“

I live in one of those States, Utah, the only Republican state of the five. A ballot will not appear in my mailbox unless “I” have requested it, however; the State has no mechanism in place to verify my identity during the ballot application process. I have never been issued a check by the State of Utah without identity verification. If a vote is really valued, this is a very haphazard way of validating it.

“Is Trump only going to contest the vote totals in states that newly opted into all mail in voting? That's only about 5 states and I think Nevada is the only one that is a swing state.”

Who knows? North Carolina, a battleground State, seems to be the focus of Trump’s current rant. That is where his “80,000“ number comes from.

“I'm guessing he challenges mail in voting in every swing state that changes the winner from Trump to Biden. Which based on how people are saying they are going to vote if Biden wins a swing state it will be because of mail in votes.”

I think mail-in ballots will be highly scrutinized by both parties, as will in-person ballots, if the results are not to a candidate’s liking. In an age where States can be won on a margin of a thousand votes, increased scrutiny is inevitable. Why complicate an already hair-trigger environment with invitations to voter fraud?

“So where do you stand? Based on your previous statement you seem to support counting these votes. Please answer these questions simply and honestly now.“

“1) Do you understand Trump is likely to be ahead in most swing states on election night?“

Yes.

“2) Do you understand the mail in votes are likely to go 2-1 for Biden and many of those election night leads are going to disappear and flip to Biden wins?”

I believe that ratio is selectively inflated to favor Biden’s prospects. Historically, more Republicans than Democrats request “provisional” absentee ballots, ie. ;the ballot can be challenged just as “same day“ ballots, for legitimacy. The sheer number of mail-in ballots during this election is problematic from the standpoint of any conceivable verification process.

“3) Do you understand that in almost all of those states they will not be conducting an all mail in election for the first time?“

Yes.

“4) Are you going to call for Biden to concede prior to the mail in ballots being counted?“

Biden can do whatever he wants, but if there is a 30% difference in the electoral count expected by DD, witholding a concession speech would be unreasonable. That said, I do not believe reason will be a high priority for Democrats given Hillary’s convention advice to refuse concession “... under any circumstances”. The writing is on the wall. Social unrest is being ginned up for delay of electoral certification. If it can be strung out to January 20th, 2021, things get really interesting.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“Why would states opting for an all mail in election in the midst of a pandemic trigger all those things?“

I am referencing both unsolicited ballots, and ballots generated through unsolicited mail-in ballot request forms, as in North Carolina. Both mail-in system features invite outright voter fraud, or voter intimidation. Our traditional system of casting the “secret ballot“ negates those possibilities, and for precisely those reasons.

In NC ballots are not being mailed out unless people request it via an absentee ballot request, as in all previous election years. Maybe there is one or two counties that are sending them out to everyone but it is definitely not state wide.

The biggest danger now in NC is that Trump encouraged people at a rally to commit voter fraud. He told people to vote absentee then go vote on election day at their precinct.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“In NC ballots are not being mailed out unless people request it via an absentee ballot request, as in all previous election years. Maybe there is one or two counties that are sending them out to everyone but it is definitely not state wide.”

There were problems in the distribution of North Carolina ballot applications. :

“According to the spokesperson, the Center for Voter Information has sent out 2.3 million absentee ballot request forms in North Carolina ahead of the November election. That includes 80,000 forms sent in June that mistakenly had some voters' information already filled out, which is not allowed. People who received those invalid forms were sent new forms along with an explanation from their local boards of election.“

https://www.wfae.org/post/what-know-if-you-got-unsolicited-absentee-ballot-request-mail#stream/0

“The biggest danger now in NC is that Trump encouraged people at a rally to commit voter fraud. He told people to vote absentee then go vote on election day at their precinct.“

Trump:

“If they tabulate it very late, which they shouldn't be doing, they'll see you voted, and so it won't count. So send it in early and then go and vote," the president said at an airport rally in Wilmington. "And if it's not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is going to count. You can't let them take your vote away."

He obviously should not have said this, it is a very illegal method of cross-checking the integrity of North Carolina’s tabulation methodology. It is equally obvious that he did not suggest a person’s double vote should count twice.

[yossarian22c]

Y-22,

“In NC ballots are not being mailed out unless people request it via an absentee ballot request, as in all previous election years. Maybe there is one or two counties that are sending them out to everyone but it is definitely not state wide.”

There were problems in the distribution of North Carolina ballot applications. :

“According to the spokesperson, the Center for Voter Information has sent out 2.3 million absentee ballot request forms in North Carolina ahead of the November election. That includes 80,000 forms sent in June that mistakenly had some voters' information already filled out, which is not allowed. People who received those invalid forms were sent new forms along with an explanation from their local boards of election.“

And what part of that has anything to do with unsolicited ballots going out? A mistake was made printing out 80,000 out of 2.3 million absentee ballot request forms and people were already sent a letter explaining it and a new form to correct it.

“The biggest danger now in NC is that Trump encouraged people at a rally to commit voter fraud. He told people to vote absentee then go vote on election day at their precinct.“

Trump:

“If they tabulate it very late, which they shouldn't be doing, they'll see you voted, and so it won't count. So send it in early and then go and vote," the president said at an airport rally in Wilmington. "And if it's not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is going to count. You can't let them take your vote away."

He obviously should not have said this, it is a very illegal method of cross-checking the integrity of North Carolina’s tabulation methodology. It is equally obvious that he did not suggest a person’s double vote should count twice.

So encouraging voters at a rally to commit a felony is mitigated by the fact that he didn't explicitly state that he wanted their vote to count twice. Quit drinking the cool aid.

[noel c.]

Y-22,

“And what part of that has anything to do with unsolicited ballots going out? A mistake was made printing out 80,000 out of 2.3 million absentee ballot request forms and people were already sent a letter explaining it and a new form to correct it.”

Read what I wrote more closely. “It has to do with” unsolicited ballot applications. Anyone in possession of one of these “mistakes” could obtain a live ballot in someone else’s name. Do you remember how many votes Gore lost Florida by?

“So encouraging voters at a rally to commit a felony is mitigated by the fact that he didn't explicitly state that he wanted their vote to count twice. Quit drinking the cool aid.”

He neither explicitly, nor implicitly, suggested a vote should count twice. If you had not overstated your claim, I would not have rebutted it.

[rightleft22]

He neither explicitly, nor implicitly, suggested a vote should count twice. If you had not overstated your claim, I would not have rebutted it.

But you agree that he did explicitly suggest his supporter test the system in this way and as voting twice is illegal suggesting they should commit a crime? 

[TheDrake]

He very much implied that they COULD do so if they wanted to.

"Hey, I hear that house on the corner has the doors unlocked. I'm not saying you SHOULD rob it. But there it is!"

Its great that people are so worried about mistakes in casting ballots, but don't mind at all when mistakes result in someone being removed from registration.

A vote suppressed is exactly as bad as a fraudulent vote. It results in a +1 or a -1.

[noel c.]

RL-22,

“But you agree that he did explicitly suggest his supporter test the system in this way and as voting twice is illegal suggesting they should commit a crime?”

Trump appears to believe that the North Carolina Board of Registrars would “see you voted... and so it won’t count”. I wish that confidence was justified. I already stated that what he suggested was illegal, but “Fraud” requires intent. Even if Trump meant to be taken literally, it would be hard to argue that the intent was to commit fraud.

In a twisted kind of way, what he suggested was a paradigmatic play in irony.

Drake,

“He very much implied that they COULD do so if they wanted to.“

You really underestimate Trump voters.

"Hey, I hear that house on the corner has the doors unlocked. I'm not saying you SHOULD rob it. But there it is!"

Right, let’s sign our own name in the visitor’s guest book as we commit the burglary while we are at it.
 
“Its great that people are so worried about mistakes in casting ballots, but don't mind at all when mistakes result in someone being removed from registration.“

I worry about both. What is your point?

“A vote suppressed is exactly as bad as a fraudulent vote. It results in a +1 or a -1.“

I agree, again; what is your point?

[DonaldD]

I expect you are then strenuously disagreeing with Trump's statements suggesting that votes not counted by election night should be disregarded then.  What actions are you taking to do so (I mean, above and beyond calling Trump out on internet forums every time he suggests suppressing votes in this way)?

[Wayward Son]

“He very much implied that they COULD do so if they wanted to.“

You really underestimate Trump voters.

Some Trump voters drank Clorox because Trump asked if there might be a way to apply it to the lungs to fight Covid-19.

I don't think you can underestimate Trump voters. 

[noel c.]

Donald,

“I expect you are then strenuously disagreeing with Trump's statements suggesting that votes not counted by election night should be disregarded then.“

If he actually said, or implied that, then yes I “strenuously disagree”.

“What actions are you taking to do so (I mean, above and beyond calling Trump out on internet forums every time he suggests suppressing votes in this way)?“

Citation?

[noel c.]

WS,

“I don't think you can underestimate Trump voters.”

And therein lies the vulnerability of the left.

[yossarian22c]

Donald,

“I expect you are then strenuously disagreeing with Trump's statements suggesting that votes not counted by election night should be disregarded then.“

If he actually said, or implied that, then yes I “strenuously disagree”.

"We're counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins, OK," Trump said during an event in  Fayetteville, North Carolina on Saturday. "Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later, two weeks later."