rigo

In the U.S. this is a controversial topic online because it centers around the idea of privilege. One of the progressive viewpoints around race is CRT (critical race theory). That argues that throughout history white people have created and benefitted from a system that oppresses other races and gives themselves advantages. In my opinion that's not very debatable. That being said I personally believe in the current day that social classes and education levels are what should be looked at more but race is a large part of the discussion. CRT is very popular with the very vocal left leaning Twitter folks and internet users.

Someone who is a proponent of CRT would argue that you can't be racist against the "dominant" (not the word in really lookin for) race within a state/country. An easy example of this is the lack of any kind of word that equates to a racial slur for white people. There really isn't one, because due to power dynamics throughout Americas history there hasn't been a time where white people were the ones being persecuted against and marginalized (which is where slurs and race based insults come from generally).

Where this falls apart is that even the idea of "whiteness" has changed over the last 150 years. For a long time the Irsh, Italians, Eastern Europeans (who would now just be considered white) did have a lot of persecution against them and there was significant "racial" bias against them. In reality those immigrants had much more in common with other poor people (regardless of race). But again, an Italian immigrant still usually had it better than a black person in many parts of the country (in terms of how they were viewed by most of society).

TLDR: Can't be racist against white people because they are the ones that "run" the system and hold the power in society. I don't agree with this 100% but get the merits of the argument.

Maybe they're worried about legacy, wouldn't doubt it. But it does, a lot of the time come down to the strict constitutionalists vs. those who are more willing to be open to interpretation and intent.

Very well said, and it's also interesting because so much of the previous decisions are based on the general attitude of the time or the policies. Like looking back the decisions are technically incorrect in a lot of areas (school integration etc.). Obviously the outcome is "good". But that's where the constitutionalists come in and knock it down.

Still in shock that this was the decision from the Supreme Court. We (the masses) are always trying to put the justices in these black and white boxes, but now Roberts and previously Barrett have issued decisions that don't seem to be line with that thinking.

I can't imagine thinking so much of yourself that you need to use AI to release a new song in this manner. It's wild.

Yeah I wonder about this a lot and what we would have to sacrifice to increase the amount of local food production. I know it would mean we'd have access to less "in season" items. But outside of that what would the impact be? Around me there are people starting farms for grass fed/free range meat, but how big can you scale that model. The way we transport/utilize food is terrible in the U.S.

Seems like the solution is to eat less meat (which I agree with in spirit). But also seems extremely unrealistic. It also doesn't cover all crops.

100% and I absolutely get that aspect. My original post was more about trying to find out what those rural solutions are since everyone commenting did keep saying things along the line of "all we need to do is __________".

Not debating the effectiveness of what they're suggesting, but also I'm allowed to ask what the other ideas are for those of us who are outside of the urban areas lol.

Yep yep, again. Agreed on all counts but that isn't what the original comments or the article was about. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. I think it's generally agreed that the more urbanized places would need revamping first. I'm just specifically asking about ideas in rural areas because that's where I'm from.

Yeah the track system is largely in place (not sure if freight or passenger). I'm not trying to argue lol. I'm just asking questions. So in your world there would be a mass spiderweb of intersecting trains that sprawls out to everywhere (obviously a kind of park and ride situation) and that would feed into the cities or other communities.

Makes me think about the whole idea of the Green New Deal that Sanders was talking about when he ran the first time. Get a giant workforce of people out there building railways and stations. Would be interesting to see for sure.

Yep, I'm not debating that point. I'm 100% in favor of doing that. I'm asking about solutions for everyone else. This debate is usually framed as "all we need to do is" when that isn't the case for everywhere or everyone. Just diving into it a little bit more.

Lol maybe in a smaller, more moderated space we can see a difference?

So to provide regularly scheduled public transportation we would need to build out rail infrastructure to country areas? I suppose a park and ride system would be effective but what would still require a mass buildout.

I'm thinking of areas like this one I attached. The nearest cities are 1hr drive from most towns, the cities are all small-midsized so don't have that many jobs (proportionally) in the first place. The solution is to put train stations in every town? Every other town? Then the cities themselves would need to build out rail infrastructure because Albany and Syracuse have very little in the way of public transportation.

Genuinely asking, not trying to come across as snarky. This is actually a middle-ground example. I could show you a map of WV or Western PA if you really want to see rural.