My understanding is that the idea behind the virtue signally, rhetorically-focused antiracism is that words change people's minds in a way that eventually translates into meaningful action.
For example, people who say "it's not enough to have a sign that says everyone is welcome here, you need to support things that improve material conditions like making Section 8 an entitlement" are making an argument in line with the original point of rhetorical antiracism.
I don't think anyone thinks that renaming a street by itself matters all that much, but symbolism is an important part of politics, and the symbolism of making a change for antiracism reasons as part of a broad set of policies seems good?
And at the same time it seems like there's some good to be done if the average white person in the US makes a point to be more friendly and less rude to people of color who they interact with
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So reporters are mad that NASA is not releasing pictures as quickly as they used to and NASA is upset because they're not used to this level of scrutiny and interest in what they're doing?
It is at best a big public relations mistake to not capitalize on public attention by releasing photos from the launch site to the public. By all appearances is a pretty cool site and people want to see it!
A good lesson for NASA to take from SpaceX is that having an active press office is very beneficial
Unemployment insurance seems like a core government function that would, could, and should be handled federally by the social security administration.
The United States is a single labor market that crosses state lines. State-level unemployment insurance programs are often very inaccessible to people who need them and underfunded so that they don't help people.
Meanwhile Social Security already tracks people's income, collects taxes, and sends out checks.
This argument has always seemed disingenuous to me, because the authorities that authorize public housing typically have authority that overrides local zoning rules.
It's true that the same people who don't like market rate construction will oppose the construction of public housing in the same ways and for the same reason.
What's not true is that explicit zoning reform for market rate units is a necessary predicate for the construction of public housing. They can easily run in parallel if, eg, a state legislature wanted.
If I wanted to convince New Yorkers to move to Ohio I would talk more about Ohio being a nice place to live and less about taxes. Everyone already knows it's cheaper to live in Ohio than NYC.