jonoh81

Redlinging did exist for Cincinnati. This is from the OSU archives. It's unfortunately pretty faded, but it used the same classifications as all other places. Here's a good story related to the https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d76e295c27bc45deba50273ac9fc06fd

He's also pretty much saying that he doesn't care if people disagree with his position, and that he believes he should fully force his personal morality onto the general public and not even give them an opportunity to vote on the matter. Pretty sure that's not democracy.

This is the true worry. They ignored the will of the voters and the constitutional amendment and just did whatever they wanted and won. Let's say this amendment fails and a later abortion rights measure passes. What exactly prevents Republicans from just ignoring the results of both when they've already shown they can get away with doing so with no consequences?

But developers not going higher or denser is partly because zoning codes allow for the opposite. Put higher base standards in place and there wouldn't be so many projects we lament for not meeting site potential. It's the same with historic preservation. The standards are lax and weak in Columbus. Put better protections in place, and you will magically have far more restorations rather than teardowns, as if structural problems all solved themselves.

I mean, we can't know with 100% certainty. That said, we've seen this same song and dance played out for literally decades, so claims of irreversible structural problems should be taken with extreme skepticism.

Okay, thanks for more clarification, but I'm still not entirely sure what kind of answer you're looking for. The Church being pro-union 132 years ago is arguably progressive for the time, and may still be in the modern era in which unions have been heavily marginalized and demonized in the capitalist profit-at-all-costs system that's been built. So good for them? But how does that connect with my suggestion that one of the answers to school issues is a strong and well-supported social support system? Are you agreeing with me? Because so far, you seem not to. A strong labor movement that emphasizes worker's rights, benefits and well-being would be part of that suggested system.

But those things do work, despite your skepticism. The problem is that they are typically deeply underfunded, understaffed and largely disincentivized in a system that has, so far, mostly pushed purely punitive measures. Investing more in social programs does not mean every single person can be saved or rehabilitated. That's an unreasonable expectation. You don't have to save everyone to have it be a societal success. We don't save every cancer patient with chemo, but chemo is still a valuable treatment.

Right, but the fact that Republicans are even attempting this, whether or not it has a chance of passing, is a problem. Failing to subvert democracy shouldn't be cause for celebration, it should make us all angry that it's even being tried.

Oof, I'm not convinced that answer is all that positive or an advantage. It makes it seem like people are only staying in Ohio because of familiar ties/obligations, and not because of anything inherent about the state. Which, given its poor growth rates and rapidly aging population, seems to be supported.

In regards to police encounters, there's a lot of evidence that schools are calling the cops over situations that used to be handled internally, and police tend to escalate every situation. Police officers in school have generally a very unfavorable effect on outcomes and general student attitudes toward police.

Without knowing the full context of the argument, I'm not really sure how I can honestly respond. The snippet as provided seems at times to be talking about two different positions at the same time.

Exactly. One cannot exclaim to be be for the tolerance of their own belief systems while trampling all over those of others.

Developers will dramatically exaggerate so-called structural issues just because they don't want to mess with renovation/rehabilitation as it generally takes more time to deal with than a simple tear down and new build. It's entirely about money, not whether a structure is actually in any serious structure danger. Neither of the early 1900s buildings should be demolished.

Teachers are largely at the mercy of local, state and national policy. And most policies coming out now are downright hostile to teachers and public education, as well as to the communities they serve.

Yes, it's called democratic socialism and investment in communities. So an automatic non-starter for the Right.

Lots of existing business models don't make much money, but are still businesses. I'm not sure the level of income changes the defintion of what a business is. Again, you claim that throwing money at public schools is not the answer, but you haven't given any actual alternative except to take money away, which will absolutely not help and almost definitely cause them harm. So you're not interested in improving public schools or finding out the real reasons why they have issues. You're stimply advocating for a select few to be able to leave them. My opposition is not necessarily to the concept of private schools, it's in the promotion of their success coming at the premeditated downfall of public schools. And I have massive issues with the way colleges and universities are run too. I am against any exclusionary model using public funding regardless of who is doing it. And we've seen just how bad this model is for students just from how many students have to take out predatory loans. So no, my ire for this is not reserved exclusively for private schools, and I don't think your argument of "well they're doing it, so it's ok" is all that strong. And I would say that there's an added problematic layer for private religious schools versus colleges because public funding is going to the teaching of specific religions, which at least OSU isn't engaged in. I actually think teachers deserve more pay for what they generally put up with, not less. CCS teachers are all very much middle class as well. You can say that some administrators are making too much, but I think that's a very subjective position. What exactly is the monetary value of an educator, or someone who runs an entire district, when the value of education to society is very high? It doesn't matter if they are or aren't in it for the money. Public schools aren't in it for the money either. The point is that one shouldn't be able to cannibalize the other. Private institutions with exclusionary practices shouldn't receive public funding, period. That goes for Catholic schools, charter schools or "public" universities. That is what my ideological objections are primarily based on. It all creates more economic and class divisions and more haves and have nots based on existing privilege. Frankly, if you have to steal money from public schools to be successful, those "large numbers" of successful, high-earning people should probably be ponying up a lot more cash. I don't actually care that some private schools are religious. People are free to believe in whatever they want. I also don't really care if religious people actually believe anything they're peddling in said schools. People are free to be gullible, too. Beyond schools, my only real objection to religion and religious people is how often they are completely unable to apply those beliefs only to their own personal lives rather than to the greater public that wants nothing to do with them. Women shouldn't be without abortion rights based on narrow religious views that most people don't share. Trans people shouldn't be banned from sports or other things based on a religious or otherwise misunderstanding or incorrect view of what sex and gender are. And so on and so forth. So no, I don't care that you're religious, I don't care that Catholic schools exist. I care whether either of those things is going to affect the rights I have or the ability to live my own life based on my own set of moral values rather than the ones you want to impose on me.

Whether I agree with the religious take on abortion is irrelevant, because I am not legislating my view for all like the religious side is. I have consistently maintained that choice is the only truly neutral position as it allows everyone to make the determination about what is right on abortion *for themselves*. The problem, of course, is that the pro-birth crowd doesn't just want to make that choice for themselves, they are foisting their position onto everyone else whether we like it or not. That's the difference, and something conservatives consistently don't seem to understand. The only equivalency would be if I supported legislation that forced pro-birth people to have abortions against their own beliefs. You keep bringing up how the Left is always talking about diversity, but you clearly don't understand what they mean by it. Diversity of thought is great, but simply having a lot of viewpoints does not mean all of those viewpoints are going to be factually correct or otherwise defensible. A neo-Nazi believing that Jews shouldn't exist is certainly part of the overall diversity of thought, but hardly something that should exist without extreme criticism. Tolerance is a good thing, but it also shouldn't be limitless. Trans people should not be tolerant of viewpoints that they are child molesters, for example. Racial minorities should not be tolerant of racism. Except someone's right to live a life free from discrimination for a biological condition is superior to someone's right to choose to be an bigot based on that condition. It just is. Notice that my criticism of the Right is not based on their race or sex or ethnicity or sexuality or anything along those lines. It's based on things they actively choose to say and do. Why shouldn't gay people view individuals attacking them as inferior? Aren't you really just saying that they should take it and do nothing in response? But those classes weren't canceled based on their actual merits after a deep, thoughtful conversation about their content. And I don't think I have to point out how historically problematic it is that a white guy is doing it. I never said there was no debate to be had, only that none took place. And what's to debate in removing references to Rosa Park's race? Her race is a critical piece of the entire story. The only reason to remove it is to whitewash history, so the reasons to remove AA AP classes are likely no more complicated than that. But there are sometimes moral considerations to policy, so that can't entirely be ignored. The real problem is not that morality is considered in policy, but that certain moral positions actively promote discriminatory viewpoints that harm people. Teachers wouldn't have to be doing all of that if we were willing to invest in communities. For example, the only reason teachers are facing things like mass shootings is both because we have some of the most lax gun laws in the world combined with near total disinvestment in urban neighborhoods for more than half a century, almost specifically because many of those neighborhoods are minority-majority or because they are too poor to have any lobbying power. So many urban public school issues are tied directly to a general disinterest in building better communities. Instead, the only thing that's really happened since the 1950s has been subsidizing the escape of more privileged individuals. You said it yourself, teachers and schools are expected to do more and more all the time, so they're basically treading water. And the solution cannot be just money for schools, as I've already said. But certainly, taking more money away from them is definitely not going to produce positive results. Public school teaching is already a s**t show because policy has made it a largely miserable, unrewarding experience that is only going to make the current teacher shortages even worse, just as other conservative policy is now doing to medical personnel shortages. The goal is to create the best outcome for all children, though, not just some, which is all diverting funds to private schools will accomplish. But who exactly is judging their failures? It seems to be mostly non-educators who have no idea what the challenges actually are, but still have enormously strong viewpoints to throw about at school board meetings. Educators have been essentially screaming for years what the issues are and where their struggles lie, and the only response they've been getting is a lot of grief and accusations of malfeasance. Unions aren't the problem.

You make a great point, I think. Many private schools, after all, are hardly altruistic institutions. They exist to make money. They're businesses. Exclusion of certain types of students, then, is good for business. This just furthers the argument, IMO, for focusing more on improving public schools. Also, Catholic schools do charge tuition, so it's a little curious to hear that they're not essentially run as a business. So the argument then is that private schools get to charge for their services like any private business, but also deserve public subsidies despite not being open to the general public. Essentially having their cake and eating it too.

You could've just said "Poor people are lazy and socially inept, and so have it coming" and there would've been no difference in the tone of this post. Also and again, anecdotes aren't evidence.

?? I'm not seeing the contradiction. Perhaps you could elaborate. That makes no logical sense. Criticism of a position is free speech. I am exercising that right. Criticism is also not the same as legislation, which is what we're talking about. Maybe because attacking trans people or banning AA studies or dogwhistling about urban violence/immigrants are objectively bigoted and racist things. I didn't create the defintions, I'm just pointing out how obviously they fit the rhetoric. Sure, I can understand that. What I'm arguing is that the decline in public education is by design, and pulling more funding from public schools to prop up yet more private options for the privileged is just another example of that ongoing process. If that's the goal of society, or the Right, then explain how making public education- the only option for that most people will ever have- worse is somehow in line with that goal? You logically can't, and that's why there's so much gaslighting about saving kids from bad schools. See, this is exactly what I mean by the decline being by design. Conservatives have been attacking public schools, their teachers and administrations for decades, propping up a narrative that they're being run by fat cat unions who don't care about education. You've been defunding them, refusing to invest in the local communities, making their jobs more dangerous with guns and crime, putting their student populations into greater poverty and inequality, and on top of that, demonizing them incessantly. I ask myself what it would look like if conservatives were actively trying to destroy public education completely, and I can't think of anything they could do differently that they've already not been doing.

What priorities are different, then? Poor people don't prioritize the attempt at a better life?

Those problems don't exist in all public schools or districts, and they do exist in some private schools as well. The point is that being public schools, specifically, is not the cause as some of you seem to be suggesting. And again, most kids will never have access to private schools regardless if the policies you're pushing allow a few more in. So all that your solutions are doing is making those problems worse for most. If you truly wanted to help the most kids, you would be for investing in better public schools and communities- neither of which conservatives tend to support. It's very much the same divide the Left and Right has on crime.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. And it's nice to know you think poor people just don't work hard enough and haven't earned a better life. That's certainly not an incredibly common and classist stereotype.

Within Christianity, it's not an extreme example, though. Or are you arguing many Christians don't believe in or take Genesis seriously? And it's hardly the only example. There are plenty of things people believe in regards to religion that are mainstream, being taught and run completely contrary to established science and evidence. We're not talking about beliefs, though. We're talking about evidence-based reality and some people rejecting it. I didn't make up the science behind vaccine or mask efficacy, and I'm not the one who is rejecting it. I think a doctor can be religious and value the science behind their specific profession, so no, you're wrong on that supposition. That said, I do think it's kind of a rather blatant contradiction to value science and evidence in one's profession, but not outside of it. Regardless, though, I don't care if a doctor is religious in their personal lives. I do care if their personal beliefs are going to get women killed over refusal to treat, for example. You keep thinking this is about people agreeing with me and it's not. The only thing I look down on is using religion to control the lives of people who do not share that religion. Again, it's not atheists banning books. It's not atheists threatening gay and trans rights. It's not atheists leading the charge against abortion rights. It's not atheists outraged over pronouns or gender identity. Etc. No, that is not my belief about doctors, and your ridiculous hypotheticals do not in any way apply to my views, as I stated above.

I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean, though it seems to be implying that private school students deserve the funding more because they worked harder to get there. Is that it?