Someone was asking about how they were going to spin this, were they getting ideas?
The Post is only fulfilling its original purpose since it was founded by Alexander Hamilton; it is a political mouthpiece for the moneyed interests in New York City.
One of their earliest political hit pieces absolutely decimated John Adams’ already tenuous political career in the public eye and ultimately paved the way for Jeffersonian politics to calcify around the heart of our nation’s politics.
Huh I would have thought the NYP was founded in like 1980 or something
If we privatize the schools, train the lower class for work and motherhood, this will.be a Fair Society! The weak stay in their place.
[this is what Conservatives actually believe]
The conservative goal would be for schooling to be as affordable as possible, without artificial barriers restricting supply for the benefit of unions rather than students. I can’t really speak for all conservatives because, first, I’m not one, & second, there’s a huge diversity of thought within conservatism. For example, some conservatives support Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza, while others oppose them, so there are obvious huge differences of opinion within the tent that is ‘conservatism’.
What monetary evidence have you seen that makes you think unions are the most expensive barrier to education?
All the evidence I’ve seen has shown education costs have outpaced even CEO/administrative pay (one of the highest rising costs in society, dwarfing even housing inflation.)
Chalking it up to unions and union workers (whose pay is often rising at inflation rates or below) seems a bit absurd.
To use a metaphor its like saying we should address a sinking ship by opening an umbrella on the roof to deflect rain instead of finding and sealing the actual holes. Maybe the rain adds to the water but shouldn’t we be discussing the hole first: rising cost of living and administrative costs.
The hyperfixation on eliminating unions while ignoring real problems and costs seems less like ‘conservative fiscal responsibility’ and more like ‘2011 Scott Walker corruption ideology’
I shouldn’t have only mentioned unions. A better way to put it is that I take issue with education when it isn’t oriented to serve the consumer (i.e., the parent or student). I would oppose eliminating unions, as I actually like many of them; I just don’t like closed-shop unions. I also like worker cooperatives, but I don’t support mandating them.
Realistically though, lets set aside unions as they are at best irrelevant to any real discussion of education and at worst simply the subject of cold war hyperfixation and irrational fear.
What is a real cost saving measure that could be brought to education?
Technology fees, subscriptions and infrastruction are, for instance, a major cost burden that has arisen in the last 40 years during the course of time where educational costs have skyrocketed. Why don’t I ever see conservatives talking about reducing educational technology costs?
There is a similar problem with legal and administrative costs as well.
I tell people to try to take the GED & graduate high school early (since it’s a waste of time & full of propaganda), then save money on their first year of college by taking CLEP exams using vouchers provided through completing Modern States courses.
this is what Conservatives actually believe
It kind of is! They believe in hierarchy, and that people need to be in their correct place for the world to work. It’s a reason they oppose things like social programs- things that try to bring people up contradict the natural order and lead to bad times!
They’re kind of bad people, fundamentally.
Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as). But “conservative” is too broad a label, because neoconservatives & paleoconservatives disagree dramatically. More right-liberal or libertarian-leaning conservatives generally do not oppose voluntary associations. That is their thing. They love open-source, volunteering, agorism, & so on. I do not know enough about neoconservatives to comment extensively, but they seem probably so obsessively pro-Israel & would likely change their views to anything if it helped Israel.
There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.
Thomas Jefferson in 1817. He penned, “Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.
In 1794, James Madison stood on the House floor and objected, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
Hierarchy is simply a reality. Believing in hierarchy is like believing in reality itself (i.e. someone is going to be better than me at weaving baskets voilà you have a hierarchy: simple as).
That’s not exactly what was meant by hierarchy. It’s more like having some people rule over others is good and natural. And that people don’t really change their station in life. You’re a peasant so course the royal family rules over you. They’re good at ruling. Perhaps innately.
There is no obvious limit to what can be considered “charity.” So, if the government takes responsibility for providing charity instead of leaving it to individuals and communities, it can use that as a reason to keep expanding its power and responsibilities.
I don’t find this a compelling argument. “Something bad might happen so we shouldn’t do anything”. I’m sure many of the people suffering from lack of food, shelter, and health care also do not find it compelling. You shouldn’t go outside because bad things can happen there. You shouldn’t lend your phone to your friend because there’s no obvious limit what they can do with it. You can use this argument to avoid anything.
The appeal to the “founding fathers” is not very effective. They lived a very long time ago in a very different world, and were not saints.
Yes but what’s this anime?
apparently: Kaju Nukumizu from the anime series Too Many Losing Heroines!
But I remember even they recognized how much of a scumbag Mayor Guilliani was.
The NY post is a trump enabling shit rag.
I love the post but not the hammer and sickle. Fuck Stalin.
Don’t give all the cred to Stalin for the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union lol
“this man is investing in making kids smarter rather than making my stock portfolio increase by an additional 0.0001% and this makes him an existential threat to society”
-NY Post, translated from news editese
I do think that relying on government programs instead of voluntary associations will increase poverty over time. Going further into debt, or needing to borrow from the state budget just to stay afloat a little longer, is like taking out one credit card to pay off another. I think that’s a bad idea.
So, to me, choosing not to step up and help solve a problem yourself (for example, through voluntary associations), while instead asking the government to use force to solve it on your behalf (by voting for government programs funded through taxation), is both a bad idea and immoral.
P.S. I know this is not a very Lemmy-friendly opinion, I know you guys tend to love democratic socialism. I think you’re well-intentioned people, but you would cause poverty and stagnation if you got your way, though. Ideally, you wouldn’t rage at me for thinking differently from you. (Take note that I hold no political power & admit I very well could be wrong, or propagandized, or whatever.)
Maybe you should stop crying about schools being underfunded by “violence” and start crying about the MIC/imperialism being massively overfunded for committing genocidal violence around the planet.
Because this bullshit is just a worthless, word salad distraction from the actual underlying problems.
I appreciate your point of view and, sure, in a different system relying on “voluntary work” would be the best option, self reliant, not dependant on market demand and government issues. Sadly we do not live in a system that allows for any real amount of free time, people that have extra work energy are few and far between, not because they are a bunch of money hogging ghouls but because the average person struggles to pay for his housing, his food, his clothing etc.
I’m under the assumption that the cost of living would decrease if there were a denationalization of money, or at least an asset-backed currency. If I’m wrong about that, then I’m probably wrong about much of my other ideological beliefs. I’m also assuming that a high cost of living, and secularism (which again I know isn’t a popular opinion on Lemmy, since you all tend to love atheism), are barriers to participation in voluntary associations. However, y’all could probably admit that churches make it easy to volunteer. Reliance on government programs also has a crowding-out effect on voluntary associations, which I would equate to fixating on the Eye of Sauron, or on evil itself, instead of trying to work within the realm of the good. Politics is a realm of toxicity that I think we should minimize, & voluntary associations are where we can do the most good & find the most agreement.
P.S. I’m a Christian, but I don’t claim to speak for my religion since I’m a stupid, flawed human with biases, deficiencies, & so on, like we all are.
If I’m wrong about that, then I’m probably wrong about much of my other ideological beliefs
Ideology is bad in general, but especially when it’s based on the imagination.
Holla when you come back to reality.
Which societies with low rates of poverty that rely on voluntary associations are you thinking of as examples?
What’s top of mind is Alexis de Tocqueville’s comparisons between the USA and France mentioned in Democracy in America. So I suppose a decent example, with caveats I’d probably have to mention if you were in a super debate-ty mood, would be an older version of the USA, prior to the Federal Reserve. The book is in the public domain btw - https://librivox.org/democracy-in-america-vol-i-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
So slavery? Or just Jim Crowe? That’s the ideal?
The book is talking about the 1830s so it seems like slavery.
Arguing against a specific idea, such as favoring voluntary associations, by bringing up slavery, which occurred during the same period when those associations were more prominent, is a goofy way to make a point. It would be analogous to arguing that the birth of the internet on January 1, 1983, was a bad thing because gay marriage was not legal at the time or because of some other unrelated thing during that time period.
You appear to be arguing against the time period as a whole rather than addressing the specific policy I support. In other words, you have constructed a straw man argument.
Except the stuff about aliens and Elvis
public school budgets can’t be bloated, only misappropriated.
Which usually happens under dipshit republican school boards.
there’s a reason Wikipedia only trusts NYP for stuff like pop culture and not politics
Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of center-left viewpoints. It doesn’t allow similar right-wing sources to be cited in the same way that it allows similar left-wing ones. My solution to Wikipedia’s bias problem would be to add bias labels to edits & users instead of banning sources along partisan lines. Users could voluntarily identify their own biases, and other users could dispute those labels if they believed they were inaccurate. P.S. Wikipedia and Reddit are major contributors to why LLMs tend to have that left-of-center bias.
“[Reality] is heavily biased in favor of
centerleft view points.”I wouldn’t say that; sometimes statistics, like crime statistics, are distorted at the point of collection. The misclassification of non-white offenders as “white” in crime statistics leads to an overrepresentation of white crime in the USA, which racist people could probably use as fuel for their perceived persecution.
In the UK, you’ll see Pakistanis being labeled as Asian, which would lead people to joke that Japanese people are doing X or Y crimes. In the USA, you’ll see Arabic or other non-stereotypical white names, and pictures of people obviously not white, being labeled as white.
P.S. I don’t support any racist whatnot; it’s just a notable example of data collection skewing a statistic and causing an overrepresentation of crimes committed by so-called white people.
The FBI’s White Crime Numbers Count More Than White Americans
That source is some guy’s blog masquerading as a newspaper. Also, even if it’s accurate, I don’t see how “whites” (which has always been a malleable term) being marginally overrepresented in some subset of crime statistics is worth anyone’s attention at this point. How is this of value to anyone except white supremacists trying to pretend their ideology is supported by facts?
It’s probably the wrong example to bring up, even if it is true, since it’s likely to elicit an emotional response that undermines the delivery of the original intent of my point: that data collection is a point where the statistics people rely on are often skewed.
Can you provide non-blog sources?
Complaining about bias and then throwing out a random guys blog post is kinda embarrassing mate. Maybe you should delete your account.
The main point is that flawed data collection is skewing the results. I don’t remember where to find the one with the mugshots to be honest.
“In response to a directive by the U.S. Government’s Office of Management and Budget, the national UCR Program has expanded its data collection categories for race from four (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Asian or Other Pacific Islander) to five (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). Also, the ethnicity categories have changed from “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino Origin” and from “Non-Hispanic” to “Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin.” These changes will be reflected in data presented for 2013.”
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2011/resources/about-the-uniform-crime-reporting-ucr-program
🤤
I’m gonna be honest, most parts in history are center-left. You’re not gonna have this utopia of right wing facts because most of them are oversimplification. Tremendously.
Reality sometimes has a left-wing bias…
Wikipedia has its bias shaped by the sources it allows users to cite. It could be correlated with reality, but I do not believe that to be the case.
‘Right wing sources’ are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn’t real, women don’t deserve rights because god doesn’t recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).
Like idk man I just don’t see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that’s a problem for politicians not people interested reality.
Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you’ve abadoned factuality.
To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren’t a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we’re all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition’s perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don’t have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.
I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.
In order to “balance the scales” you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren’t.
All you’re doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.
Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I’m not really a tribal person, so I don’t particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn’t say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.
Excuse me but could you explain what an “open border policy” even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?
What the fuck are you even talking about? There’s not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of “open borders” and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.
Supporting or not supporting “open borders” is not a political stance because there’s no meaning to the words, its nonsense.
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
Perhaps because right wing sourcers have a higher tendency to create disinformation and fabricate facts than left. As an example today most far right wing politics in Western countries seem to be based on dangers of a non-existing enemy. Similarly Russian troll farms generally disseminate right wing ideologies in the form of distorted facts. Staying center for a knowledge source is the ideal but if I had to pick a side would definitely go center left.
Honestly, this comment of yours is probably more a reflection of your own values than of reality.
It is possible that right-wing sources, or particular types of right-wing sources, have a greater tendency to create disinformation or fabricate facts than left-wing sources. However, the opposite could also be true in some cases; left-wing sources may sometimes be more likely to label their opposition’s claims as misinformation rather than recognizing them as competing interpretations or arguments.
For example, some sources labeled certain claims about natural immunity after exposure to the virus, including claims that it could provide stronger protection than boosters in some circumstances, as misinformation. However, certainty in any broad generalization, such as the idea that natural immunity is always better, hybrid immunity is always better, or mRNA vaccines are always better, would be inaccurate. The reality is that the effectiveness of different forms of immunity depends on many factors, & people continue to study how these factors interact. Outcomes can vary depending on individual circumstances, such as age, comorbidities, immune status, prior exposure, and other whatnot.
Is wikipedia biased or are the facts just generally not in favor of the right wing side of politics? Is wikipedia rejecting right wing sources or does right wing media just have a higher than average tendancy to cater to public opinion with “editorial liberties”?
This is not the first time I hear people essentially brand wikipedia as left wing, but it would be the first time somebody actually proved that sentiment with some examples that proves factual right wing sources are actively rejected.
I have no problem with the idea that reality and therefore wikipedia could be left leaning, but that’s only a problem if it’s forced to look that way. I don’t think it is.
Here’s a direct source for Wikipedia’s own position on source reliability. I could send you someone’s interpretation of it, but those interpretations would introduce another layer of bias, so it’s better to look at the source itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have both criticized Wikipedia in ways similar to my own criticisms, but they share some of my biases, which might cause you to dismiss their views as well if you already have a strong opinion on the matter.
Larry Sanger bias drama discussed from a perspective likely closer to your own bias. - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/media/wikipedia-larry-sanger-barred.html
https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity
Larry Sanger - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger Jimmy Wales - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
P.S. It’s possible to dislike right-wingers and still acknowledge that Wikipedia has a bias problem.
chud
There’s far more than enough money to go around, it is that most spending is inefficient. Lunches should be free and healthy, books should be free unless it’s intentionally damaged, teachers should be paid well (60k minimum) and management should take a pay cut.
60K minimum indeed is a minimum these days
NYC teachers already start at $68,902 per year. That’s not really “paid well” though considering it’s NYC.
Yeah when I said 60K minimum I was thinking 60k West Virginia not 60K NYC.
Teachers should be paid more than, say, marketing people at a blockchain AI startup. Teachers add value to the world.
60k was pre 2020 rate, they should be paid 100k+ for how much training and bullshit they have to go through.
150k in like NY, SD, LA, SF. Maybe closer to 60k in Beckley WV. Cost of living and taxes aren’t the same everywhere.
Beckley deserves so much more than to be a tourist trap where people get told lies about the union
Lol I literally just picked it off the map. I really wasn’t expecting anyone in this thread to know that location intimately.
it’s just down the road from me. it’s a convergence point between a bunch of mining towns so it’s a bit of a significant labor organization point in central Appalachia. it’s also where Mother Jones founded the UMWA. also prior to European colonization it access between the Allegheny highlands and the great valley made it an ideal trading hub thanks to the New River, so it holds significance to indigenous rights organizers in Appalachia as well. the fact that the median income is $19k/yr is very much a policy choice of enforcing poverty
A lot of interesting information. I’ve found in personal experience the further west one travels the less connected people are to their geographic location. Maybe also it’s an aspect of smaller and bigger states. Like small states seem to have a lot of people with a lot of awareness of the local history and pride vs bigger states it’s very difficult to find someone like that. Maybe a third aspect is high traffic states, aka locations with lots of transplants vs areas with essentially none. So by the time you reach Southern California it’s nearly impossible to casually meet someone who knows anything about the local history much less has a serious pride or attachment to the location.
Arguably, more rural schools or those in lower income areas should be paying proportionally better for teachers, to attract talent that would otherwise have no interest in being in that area. Those schools tend to be where students and their families have little or no say about what districts they are in, as they use regional magnet schools that cater to multiple small towns. They’d have to completely upend everything and move a substantial distance to have options urban folks take largely for granted. My town has two public and three private school systems, for example, and its only moderately urban. Where I grew up, one school district serviced 1/4 of the county.
Currently the rural districts pay nearly nothing and its lower than other places which also pay nearly nothing, so they get the worst of the worst educators who can’t find better and it keeps everyone’s wages depressed generationally.
But social mobility is a dream of that past that’s long since dead and buried anyway.
It depends on circumstances, you’re assuming a scenario vs the scenario of a local who went to a good university and wants to stay in their small town. Ideally things are left up to the decision of each community and school board. Like if they want to commit a particular percentage of the funds to teachers pay to attract a greater talent then that’s a decision they can make. My argument is mostly that at minimum teachers should make a decent living wage in respect to the local market. 60k in a rural town in Mississippi, Montana, or West Virginia isn’t the same as 60k in NYC, SF, LA, DC and so on as the default minimum.
I never said anyone shouldn’t make a decent wage wrt:local economy. But I live in a depressed economy, and have my whole life, so I know full well just how stuck people get financially when they are from low cost areas or spend too much of their career time in one. Hardly anyone goes to a good school and then goes back to their shitty home town on purpose, because college is expensive and they can’t pay it off while making peanuts in their hometown. It ends up being an option only desperate people take, which means shitty teachers, which in turn means dumb kids who go on to lead low income lives.
I said rural and low cost areas should pay proportionally more, probably just through state budgets rather than giving them an option they will always choose to fuck up, to attract talent, because it’s good for the community across generations. A rising tide lifts all ships, and maybe people would go to a good school and then go back to their hometown, if their hometown was offering them a decent quality of life.
Its true that 60k is different in low cost areas vs high cost ones, but thats part of my point. Its not like our low income areas are a separate country with their own currency and stuff. The only way it matters that 60k spends differently is if you never plan to leave. Wanna go on vacation? That 6k trip that’s reasonably affordable at 1/20th yearly wages for someone in California who makes 120k (comparing high wages in respective markets), is 1/10 yearly wages for someone making 60, a substantial difference in impact for the same life experience for two people making similarly “good wages” in their local economy, and there aren’t any poor area discounts, either. If they want to sell their house and buy one somewhere with better opportunities, they will absolutely for sure still need a substantial mortgage they will never get approved for because everything is so much more expensive than what they are selling from, and their work income history is so much lower than what’s required. Our goods aren’t cheaper either, other than maybe food and gas. That big purchase is proportionally bigger for someone who earns less, even if everyone around them also earns less.
I’d like to see the income distribution curve sort of level out a bit where mobility (physical, in this case) was a real option for all of us rather than something you have to take a massive risk of homelessness or be from a wealthy area to do. I’d like to see wages in low income areas increase faster than those in big urban areas, simply because they have been so much more stagnant for so much longer (min wage here is still 7.25 and lots of jobs still pay that -can’t live on that here either). Mostly, I’d like to see quality of life increase in poor areas, and that means more money available to the local economy. One of the ways to do this is to get better educational outcomes, make the future workforce desirable. Better education also tends to decrease conservatism, so it’d be doubly good to do. Snowball effect and everything.
NYC teachers max out at about $124,000 after 15+ years and if they have a master’s. That’s not some huge amount in NYC. At least they get a pension so they can move to Costa Rica after they retire and live somewhat comfortably.
There are some issues around corruption and school management. Schools near me requested substantial funding to replace aging AC units. The very next year after they got it, a number of the AC units failed, and they couldn’t replace them. An audit showed that the entire funding for the AC replacement was divided among the top administrators and paid as a bonus.
That said, the way to stop that from happening isn’t to defund public schools and just repeat the same problem with private schools. You put in some oversight. You make them provide reports for the funding, spot-check, and trust with verification.
Pushing kids into private schools by defunding will make education (and safety) impossible to monitor.
And they all got prison sentences, right? Right? Of course they didn’t…
My local school district (that I actually work for as a bus driver) brought in a new superintendent for $600,000 a year. Did fuck all except for bringing in a bunch of his cronies to work meaningless jobs for over $200,000 a year and pissing off the teachers with more meaningless busywork. Three years into his six-year contract the school board had to run him out, by basically offering him his remaining $1.8 million to leave peacefully.
If only there were some entity designed to oversee education and how public schools are run…
Fuck the NYP, but sadly both can be true.
Look at the University of California. Paying slave’s wages to faculty in spite of ever-increasing tuitions that only feed a giant tumor called “admin.”
Paying slave’s wages to faculty in spite of ever-increasing tuitions that only feed a giant tumor called “admin.”
If you think that’s just UC, then I have bad news for you.
Look at the University of California.
There was a lot of money that UC funneled to construction companies and banks during the LIBOR rigging scandal. It affected a lot of universities around the country, and became big news when Harvard sued to get their money back. The UC Regents said “nothin to see here” and elected not to pursue getting the stolen money back. Shortly after, one of those regents got a VP gig at Wells Fargo (with no prior banking experience).
So yeah… fuck the NYP for sure, but education budgets are badly bloated and the crookedness is rampant.
Won’t someone unthink of the kids!?
