Girl power! Rooooar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033010)

And hey, at least the men are in it too. We all get to be miserable together.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033238)

The administration started disciplinary proceedings against Thrasher.[12] In December 1997 the administration charged Thrasher with discrimination against women as per the university's code of student conduct.[14] The author was sent to a university disciplinary hearing.[4] On December 15, 1997, Gretchen C. Hess,[18] the university's discipline officer, reviewed the university's charges.[14] Hess declared Thrasher guilty of violating s. 30A.3.2 of the Code of Student Behaviour,[18][14] and the university punished Thrasher by issuing him a written reprimand that said "We reprimand Mr. Thrasher for failing to treat women with dignity and respect. In future, Mr. Thrasher should be more sensitive to some members of his reading audience in his depiction of issues" and that he would be fined $200 ($281.27 when adjusted for inflation) by making a contribution of that amount to the Graduate Students' Association Food Bank

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033424)

One basic possibility is that America's race-related issues (high crime, bombed out schools, ineffective local government) keeps whites a lot more conservative than they'd otherwise be. Also, perhaps America's extremely diverse religious make-up (and lack of a state church) made it more resistant to secularization. Quebec in particular went from the most overtly religious, conservative Western society on Earth to almost completely secular and left-wing in a massive preference cascade lasting just a decade.

Just guessing there, though. There's probably many factors and I'm not an expert.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033493)

Because in essence what you're saying is that more homogeneous, high-trust societies with robust middle classes tend to get more lib and secular, but also keep a higher quality of life.

When you think about it that way, libs pushing diversity is almost the worst thing they can do, as it keeps large groups of people redpilled and right wing, and creates not only ethnic/religious conflict, but also political conflict.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033511)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233614385_A_Liberal_Is_Someone_Who_Has_Not_Been_Mugged_Criminal_Victimization_and_Political_Beliefs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033552)

In a lot of Southern states white people vote 75-90 percent Republican. I just can't imagine that happening without racial dynamics pushing them there. Similarly, Minnesota and Wisconsin were once hyperlib but have both trended conservative despite rising minority populations. Some of that must be backlash to the failures of diversity and the welfare state, I imagine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033703)

In some respects this is why wealthy UMC suburbs are the areas trending more lib, because (i) they are a self-selected group of people who know how to behave and who care about their communities, and (ii) because the minorities they do get are oftentimes great and hardworking people, so it doesn't present nearly the same issue.

OTOH, middle and working class neighborhoods are getting stuffed with lots of poor, lower-iq and needy hispanics, which harms the community and its schools, so those communities are trending more conservative (minus the minorities of course).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033753)

At some point, leftists started saying that identity politics would have ZERO trade offs in the fight for income redistribution, so this became verboten to discuss

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033579)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html

The point is that we have become a more diverse and less racist country over time. The “macaca” incident, in which Senator George Allen’s use of a racial insult led to his election defeat, epitomized the way in which America has changed for the better.

And because conservative ascendancy has depended so crucially on the racial backlash — a close look at voting data shows that religion and “values” issues have been far less important — I believe that the declining power of that backlash changes everything.

Can anti-immigrant rhetoric replace old-fashioned racial politics? No, because it mobilizes the same shrinking pool of whites — and alienates the growing number of Latino voters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033627)

The second paper, by the economists Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote, was titled “Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-style Welfare State?” Its authors — who are not, by the way, especially liberal — explored a number of hypotheses, but eventually concluded that race is central, because in America programs that help the needy are all too often seen as programs that help Those People: “Within the United States, race is the single most important predictor of support for welfare. America’s troubled race relations are clearly a major reason for the absence of an American welfare state.”

Now, that paper was published in 2001, and you might wonder if things have changed since then. Unfortunately, the answer is that they haven’t, as you can see by looking at how states are implementing — or refusing to implement — Obamacare.

For those who haven’t been following this issue, in 2012 the Supreme Court gave individual states the option, if they so chose, of blocking the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, a key part of the plan to provide health insurance to lower-income Americans. But why would any state choose to exercise that option? After all, states were being offered a federally-funded program that would provide major benefits to millions of their citizens, pour billions into their economies, and help support their health-care providers. Who would turn down such an offer?

The answer is, 22 states at this point, although some may eventually change their minds. And what do these states have in common? Mainly, a history of slaveholding: Only one former member of the Confederacy has expanded Medicaid, and while a few Northern states are also part of the movement, more than 80 percent of the population in Medicaid-refusing America lives in states that practiced slavery before the Civil War.

And it’s not just health reform: a history of slavery is a strong predictor of everything from gun control (or rather its absence), to low minimum wages and hostility to unions, to tax policy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033651)

What I don't understand is that, at least for white libs, isn't diversity then the worst of both worlds, because not only does it lower QoL and social trust and cohesion, but also makes the fight for economic leftism more difficult?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033636)

2. Weird dynamic created by the Quebec separatist movement

3. Lack of strong protection for freedom of speech and all that implies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033510)

As an example, feminists make tons of noise about not having equal representation in positions that draw people from the tippy top of the bell curve, but they also fail to acknowledge that women are also underrepresented from outcomes that affect the other tail of the bell curve as well.

Or they want to complain about being judged for their looks, while failing to acknowledge the benefits that confers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35033781)

"WHEN ARE 50% OF EXECUTIVES GOING TO BE WOMEN, BIGOT?!??!?!"

-- when 50% of prisoners and workplace fatalities are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35034479)

Tbf actual feminists are usually ugly women. Hot women only parrot feminism to put down betas they want to leave them alone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3843133&forum_id=2#35061693)