cmh89

He's really good at selling an image, which is what pushed Tesla ahead of other car makers. His whole 'Tony Stark' image is basically cat nip to tech bros and made Tesla cool and desirable.

I think you are spot on. There are dozens of 'Elon Musks' out there we don't notice or talk about because they didn't win. Someone was going to win in the space, the government was heavily incentivizing electric car purchases. Musk was the best salesmen and here we are. That doesn't make him a tactical genius.

>Please provide a reference for negative monetary incentives for teachers.

Again, if you are interested, you should learn, literally, the basic of the subject on which you are speaking

https://www.nber.org/digest/feb15/impact-school-performance-...

You are at this point "debating" the foundation of NCLB, of which it doesn't seem like you know anything about.

>Sure I see race, I just don't see a good reason to judge people differently based on their race.

I don't believe you. I don't know if you're lying to me or yourself, but you have racial bias (we all do).

> Policies that treat people differently based on the color of their skin (something that is foundational to the entire framework of DEI initiatives) is a bad idea.

Sure! We already have a socioeconomic system that treats people differently based on the color of the their skin. That's reality. It's not DEI thats the problem, its racists.

>White neoliberals control most levers of power in society.

This true, but I'm guessing you don't really understand that neoliberalism is just another word for conservative. Neoliberals hate DEI.

>Judging people by the color of their skin is racism, and DEI seeks to institutionalize those racist policies. I do not support institutionalized racism regardless of the target, and I would hope more people begin to see the idiocy in doing so. All it does is breed resentment, divisiveness and racial animosity.

LMAO bruh, judging people by the color of their skin was institutionalized 150 before DEI was ever thought of. The United States had FUCKING SLAVES based on the color the skin. Stop being a racist shit. Its been less than 50 years since the federal government *had to outlaw racial segregation because racist ass racists wanted racial segregation*. Quit your horseshit bud. There is still time for you to heal.

I mean, only a fool would mistake Youtube comments for real life. Was is the pro-Nazi comments that resonated with you and made you feel like you weren't alone?

>DEI is a grift, supported only by people who are ok with the idea of racial discrimination.

Let me guess, you 'don't see race'?

Racism and sexism exist. They exist in the workplace. DEI is a remedy towards that.

I'm not sure why you are quoting Kendi? Are you under the impression that Kendi invented DEI or owns it?

Like this whole article was written by someone who is a leader in DEI and doesn't agree with Kendi.

If you want to continue this conversation, thats fine, but if you can't understand the difference between the concept of DEI and an individuals views,there really is no point.

>I did. The NCLB Act has precisely ZERO monetary incentives for teachers

They had negative monetary incentives for teachers and schools

>It was obviously written and enacted by people who have no idea how incentives actually work.

It was written by people who don't believe in public education. It's the literal concept you are pushing whether you recognize that or not.

Finally see what? DEI is extremely important. It's just also a space that can be dominated by some absolutely dumb people.

>Sometimes, quitting is just setting the stage for the next unscrupulous individual to come in and really muck things up where at least if you are still there, there's a brake, and a voice in the room

Then don't quit and do your job. Simply not doing the job you are paid to do isn't an option. There are parts of my job that I do that I don't agree with. Its called life.

>Those dead set on abusing power would prefer that all those principled people would just get out of the way to let them steamroll the populace or enact their designs.

This is rich. The NYPD is abusing their power. This isn't some valient cops sticking up for us. It's criminals who want to continue to act in a criminal manner.

>It isn't a right wing thing.

Yes it is

>Lets say every cop isn't fine with law X. You say you'll dismiss every cop who won't enforce it. You start doing it. You fire cops in droves. You'll very quickly start running out of candidates for the job, or you'll find yourself having to make concessions elsewhere. In fact, if it's a lot of cops you get rid of, you may find yourself short of any degree of law enforcement.

I mean yes, you are just describing how police hold the public hostage to avoid accountability. That doesn't make it okay for them to do it.

I (white male) used to try and be active as an ally in regards to DEI. I work for a large public agency. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole these days.

This vein of 'antiracism' is poison because it really is absurd. I've personally seen people call 'agendas' and 'goals' white supremacy. Hell, I had to listen to someone talk about how 'clock time' is a tool invented by white supremacists. I've had friends fall down the rabbit whole into this nonsense, where any shortcoming in themselves is just white supremacist culture trying to force things on them. It's really sad.

The most insidious thing is how well it has a built-in defense mechanism. By co-opting terms like 'anti-racist' and defining them under a narrow socio-political view point, it creates a complication for people to talk about their world view. I consider myself 'anti-racist' because I hate racists, but am I 'Anti-racist' in Kemba's viewpoint? No

And stop trying to make Latinx a thing, its not going to happen and is super cringy.

>Not at all. I'm looking at we aren't getting the desired results. We've tried everything but the obvious - pay for results.

What you're proposing is not "obvious" to anyone who actually studies education.

>Quite the opposite. The bonus is per student.

How familiar are you with education? Children develop at different paces but are grouped by age, at least until high school. Teachers don't just teach to get the kids to the next grade, or at least they shouldn't. Under what you are proposing, it doesn't make sense for a teacher to spend any time on a kid who is already going to go on to the next grade. There is no incentive to challenge them with harder books, or harder math problems.

Like, we literally already tried this with NCLB. The ended in the most obvious way possible. Teachers taught to get test results, standards were lowered to make it easier to move to the next grade, children who were excelling were ignored by their teachers who had to focus on children who were lagging.

The whole concept behind 'pay for results' is that you think teachers are not putting the effort they could in.

>NCLB was nothing like I proposed.

I encourage you to do some reading on this topic. You're literally just describing a positive incentive based NCLB. You have the same operating theory that the designers of NCLB had.

>It's also not about working harder. It's about results.

This is a meaningless statement.

It's not even about medicine. OP is saying that states (or even smaller) should get to decide if women get ownership over their bodies.

Just change it to literally any other medical procedure and we can see it for what it really is. 'Kentucky bans women from having kidney stones removed'.

Of course, its all in bad faith on the conservative side. The minute the federal government has the opportunity to ban abortion nationwide, these "states rights" and "local control" folks will either shut right up or they will come out and spin some nonsense about how its okay for the federal government to exert control over the states in this case.

>Actually, it stems from the Nuremberg Trials, and actually having a goddamn moral compass

It doesn't 'stem' from anywhere. It's just a right-wing thing to pretend that police have some unwritten ability to decide the legality of laws.

> While it may scare the bajeezus out of many, the responsibility for calling out governmental bullshit is vested solely with the People, and law enforcers are still People to.

Calling out 'governmental bullshit' is something they can do on their own time by practicing their 1st amendment rights. Choosing to not enforce a law because you don't like it is not free speech. It's job abandonment and should be treated as such.

If you think part of your job is morally wrong, you should quit.

> Their accrual of power depends on being nice to the 30,000 people in the town

No it doesn't. Small town cops get their power from their lack of having anything to do and the blind support of the community.

The small town I grew up in had a cop murder four people because he broke chase policy and even left his jurisdiction. The town newspaper wrote a weeks worth of articles talking about what a great guy he was and how all the youths in the town loved him.

Don't piss off a small town cop. They have literally nothing to do and can/will pull you over every single time they see you.

Edit* I have to edit this due to this forums anti-discussion features

Sorry, most police departments have rules about how far/fast you can chase someone in a vehicle who is fleeing. They have these in place so cowboy cops don't engage in dangerous behavior for low value.

This cowboy pulled into a cul-de-sac and some kids who had some weed on them got spooked a pulled out. He started to chase them, it turned into a high-speed chase on rural roads. They flew through a stop sign and t-boned a car with four people inside of it. Killed them all. Over some weed.

That's why the policies exist in the first place, he violated it, and four people paid the price.

COVID-19 has been the number one cause of death for police officers for three years

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-leading-cause-law-enforc...

It's not surprising in the slightest. I'm guessing a lot of them developed a aversion to vaccines from the media they ingest.

Edit* I'm laughing at the downvotes for posting an article. Real Reddit energy.

>They do it because it works.

You're making an assumption that the issue is that the teachers aren't putting in the effort.

Children are not simple input/output machines you program. A food insecure child with illiterate parents is going to require individualized and intensive resources, where a child who has Doctors for parents will generally show up to school with the knowledge they need.

Gamification of schools is a really great way to get teachers to completely ignore the development of most of the class to focus on one or two kids.

It's amazing that after the widely documented failure of NCLB, people are still promoting these 'work harder' systems.

I don't know where OP is from, but long-waits frequently are because of triaging higher severity rates.

If you have a chainsaw accident and its serious, you arent going to wait 8 hours

It's almost certainly driven by the cause of death on the death certificate.

>From my understanding most Americans are centrists and have established a status quo that is neutral on the LGBT+ group

Can you point to anything substantial that supports this idea? The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage [1], and almost three-quarters of Americans (71%) said that being gay is morally acceptable [2].

Most Americans are liberal, which is why platforms move to ban hate mongers and extremists. Instagram doesn't care in the slightest about protecting LGBTQ folks. They just understand that most people don't want to participate in a hateful cesspit.

There is a reason that Truth Social and whatever right-wing trash app comes next will never gain any sort of mainstream traction, most people support deplatforming hate mongers.

[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/15/about-six-i... [2]https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

The Amish have rigid hierarchies. People who are drawn to communes frequently don't want to live with rigid hierarchies.

Amish culture is not all that different than general American culture structurally. Communes are.

The Amish aren't getting a lot of recruits, so the folks that are there were born, raised, and indoctrinated, which also helps with sticking.

Did you read the comment chain before jumping in? My point is that capitalism didn't improve conditions for children, it made them in many ways worse by forcing both adults and children to work harder, and in worse conditions.

Your contention that we simply got rich enough that child labor went away is not based in any reality. "Lefitist" had to pass laws to stop capitalist from using child labor. Its a fight we are still fighting today. Child labor is so hot with capitalist right now.

Ah, so you mean most be actually enjoy it and don't share your concern.

>I would definitely like to keep some non-existing ideals of fairness and equality in America out of my bedroom and personal life

Don't use American services then? Unless I'm missing something, you don't have to use any online dating platform at all, more so not one that is based in the United States.

Online dating de-contextualizes people and no amount of filtering can change that.

When you meet people IRL you have some context for them and want they like to do. For example, I met my wife as she was the roommate of a new male friend I'd made. Because of our shared friend, I was pretty confident when she said she liked biking or hiking, that it was at the same level I did, because that's something that friend group was in to.

>Maybe check your basic facts first next time.

What are you talking about? You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of this subject. You were fundamentally wrong about needing to outlaw child labor. You didn't seem to know what the Fair Labor Standards Act was until I introduced it to you.

Capitalist are currently working to reintroduce child labor to the US to undercut wages. It's embarrassing for you to respond when you've displayed such a lack of understanding on the topic.

"Every decade following 1870, the number of children in the workforce increased, with the percentage not dropping until the 1920s.[6] Especially in textile mills, children were often hired together with both parents and could be hired for only $2 a week.[7] Their parents could both work in the mill and watch their children at the same time"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_the_United_Stat...

Child labor increased during the industrial revolution. You are simply wrong.

But we literally had to outlaw it. These are basic facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United...

Going through and brigading the truth doesn't change it.

So your examples of books you've read are you books you disagree with? You are the primary source for your world view it appears.

Based on this post, I'm guessing you don't have any serious suggestions?

>Things start getting highly regulated when the government sets what prices you can charge, who you are allowed to do business with, etc.

Oh! It's so convenient that the definition of 'highly regulated' for you fits perfectly into your world view. Those hundreds of thousands of pages of laws that govern trade and the tens of thousands of enforcement officials must just be my imaginiation

>For example, I'm in the software business. There aren't any regulations on it.

Your definition of regulation is different than the actual definition of regulation.

You already got your understanding of the German economy corrected by others. I think you almost certainly are a great example of someone who is a SME in one area which makes you think you are a SME in other areas, when you actually aren't.

Social Security and Medicare aren't wealth transfer programs. The United States has tons of regulations and central economic planning. Your ignorance of those facts is a deficit on your part that you can easily rectify.

>Describe what you consider as "highly regulated".

The United States economy. We have trade regulations, license regulations,import and export regulations, we have standards regulations. You know, lots of restrictions on trade.

>You brought up Medicare and Social Security.

Neither of those programs are 'wealth transfer' programs.

>What I read are history books.

Oh really, what are some of your favorites?

>Nobody said it was a "perfect" free market. Nothing human is perfect. It was a decent approximation to one, thought.

What are you talking about. Do you know the definition of 'free market'?

"an economic system in which prices are determined by *unrestricted* competition between privately owned businesses."

The United States is not, and never has been, a free market economy. Using 'perfect' and 'imperfect' is you simply trying to bend a definition to support an argument you want to make. The US market has always been highly regulated.

>Somehow that didn't seem to have any effect on life expectancy or poverty statistics.

Ah, so you're just throwing reality all the way out the window then?

>Do you really think that the enormous movement in the 19th century US of people out of poverty into the middle class came from government wealth transfer programs?

Why are you talking about wealth transfer programs? What are you talking about?

Your knowledge on this subject seems to be realllly skewed towards what someone who consumes a lot of right-wing media content would think. I encourage you to do some actual reading on the subject.

Bottled water is great as long as you ignore the major problems with bottled water!!!!!!