Regarding my action vs. theory post: I thought this Inside Higher Ed article was a good melding of the two: teach activists to be builders.
It also reminded me of this story from the Chronicle for Higher Ed. Student activists at Sarah Lawrence College interrupted speech with a list of demands. The writer, who was one of the speakers, recalls a conversation after the event with the president who reflected on how difficult it was to engage with these students. She had tried to get them involved in the budget process and be a part of the solution.
Their response: "it isn’t our job. You figure it out." They didn't want to be builders.
Tanner Greer was right. Today’s activism isn’t “How can we solve this problem?” It’s “How can we get management to take our side?”
This paper finds that “greater access to firearms in the Black community reduced the rate of lynching in the Jim Crow South.” So maybe greater access to guns isn’t always a bad thing. Consider my priors updated.
I've always liked the argument that bad science shouldn't be fixed with censorship, it should be fixed with better science. But I never had a good example of what that would look like.
Now I do. Jonathan Rauch fucking nails it.
In the early 20th century, the American Psychiatric Association's official stance on homosexuality was that it was a mental illness. Finally, in 1956 one psychologist tested whether psychiatrists could distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals based on personality tests. They could not. By 1973 the APA reversed its stance.
Violet video games reduce violence:
Policy position more politicians should advocate for: mandate Rockstar Games release more Grand Theft Auto games to lower crime rates
— Ethan Mollick (@emollick) November 1, 2022
When a GTA game is released, violence & crime actually drop, as potential criminals stay inside to play (This applies to other big shooters, too) pic.twitter.com/oGQvGRHWCX
So not only is the “video games cause school shootings” argument wrong, it actually does the opposite.
We know that millennials and Gen Z aren't able to afford homes because we haven't been building enough supply. But when we do build new homes, they aren't even they types that youngish people can afford Why?
Even as American households have gotten smaller, American houses have grown, and the classic American "starter home" has all but disappeared. Why?
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) September 25, 2022
Government regulations, fees, taxes (tariffs too), etc. that make building small houses unprofitable.https://t.co/VgbRqsDnpl pic.twitter.com/Gbxa5uR9c7
I’ve noticed that new construction is always big houses, never any new starter homes. Now I know why.
No comments:
Post a Comment