all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 1 year ago

Are they even better if you only look at the rich folks?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I want that line used as the default example of prejudice, in dictionaries.

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • This man should be put in a sack and beaten

  • source
  • 69 comments in c/nottheonion@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 202 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    They’re even better if you only count white men

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Those numbers can go down even further if you exclude everyone who isn’t a millionaire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Nope. I think once you exclude women, the maternal death rates will hit their minimum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 99 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    There's some truth to his statement as far as the numbers go and perhaps some correction is needed. Obviously, you wouldn't want to entirely remove the stats of African American women, as that would be blatantly racist, but it seems some for of compromise is warranted.

    Perhaps counting only half of them? or perhaps slightly more than half, say 6/10ths

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Perhaps counting only half of them? or perhaps slightly more than half, say 6/10ths

    Very strong scientific and historical basis for going with 3/5ths. But if some stats make America look bad, I think 0/3rds would fix it, and fire the agency lead if they don't go with 0/5ths of a person for black women. America was great when it was 3/5ths, and so 0/5ths is needed immediately to make America great again before my 3rd term election.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Ah, I have a modest proposal. Let's count 60% of maternal deaths from black women. /s

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    I might be wrong, Frank, but my reading of the text says that freed slaves fall under “the whole Number of free Persons” and thus count as 1, not three fifths.

    The three fifths compromise just said slave states shouldn’t get to count slave population to get more representatives. The non-slave states wanted them not to count at all, since they don’t get representation regardless. It’s wild to me that we think of the “three fifths of all other persons” thing as the bad part, rather than the “rich assholes who owned people got more representation than those who didn’t own people because the people they owned counted toward their representative allotments.” After all, the slave owners wanted slaves to count as a full person. The problem, as always, was slavery.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don’t think it’s that “three fifths” is the only bad part per se, it just gets referenced a lot because it is a really indefensible example of how enslaved people were considered less than a person. So much so that here it is codified as a fraction of a person. Very in your face sort of language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    I think although very vivid language it is quite defensible for the reasons Kuni mentioned: in the only context where slaves were actually defined as 3/5 of a person, all they could do was allow their masters to extract extra value through representation from them, as they did not get representation for being counted towards House representation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Dudes a piece of shit still, but the article is 3 years old.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    but the article is 3 years old.

    So you think he has learned from his mistakes and improved his atrocious stance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Im impressed that you managed to read the second half of my comment without reading the first. The whole comment is a dozen words, so thats a real feat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I did read it, I just found questionable as it seems you are dismissing this as too old to care

    Cassidy is still a Senator and a piece of shit, so what does it matter if the racist thing he said is 3 years old?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I literally said hes still a piece of shit, so that should answer your first question. As to "how is this not relevant?"

    The article is talking about what might happen if Roe is overturned by the supreme court, and what that might mean down the line. That happened already. We are out of "might" and are several years down the line.

    Lets talk about what's currently happening, now. Discussing a speculative article about changes that "may occur in the future" is pretty odd when we are 3 years in the future and can literally tell the article what happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago

    "Our maternal death rates are only bad because of inherent racism in our medical industry"

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality"

    🤦

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    May 20, 2022

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    And our mass shooting events are pretty low when you don't count bigoted white men.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    He continued: "Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality."

    Maybe you should look into that, Senator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    As expected racist pieces of shit.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    Damn there really isn't even a quiet part anymore is there

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    This is from 3 years ago.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    So you're going to do something to lower the maternal death rate for black women, right?

    /padme.jpg

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Funniest headline The Onion could have ever come up with!!!!

    Maybe the medicaid cuts will make the black women count rise faster than the white women count, and that will make it ok :(

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    In an interview with Politico, the following words came out of Cassidy’s mouth: “About a third of our population is African American; African Americans have a higher incidence of maternal mortality. So, if you correct our population for race, we’re not as much of an outlier as it’d otherwise appear. Now, I say that not to minimize the issue but to focus the issue as to where it would be. For whatever reason, people of color have a higher incidence of maternal mortality.”

    Scum POS. I'm sure he will start fixing the issue instead contributing to it.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I think he's pointing out that this is a federal race-connected issue, not a local state issue. As in other states have similar stats if you group the numbers by race.

    If that is correct, that's a fair assessment. He should obviously work with the rest of Congress to solve that national issue, though, and he should really spearhead it if it affects his state more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    If only states were capable of doing things to improve the lives of their residents above what the nation as a whole can do. Clearly it's impossible. Woe be this poor powerless state politician.

    Your justification doesn't hold within its own logic. And doesn't address how blatantly racist the statement itself is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Solving it in his state is certainly a good way of spearheading a national solution.

    As for you considering the statement racist: I was expecting a lot worse based on the headline. I don't think grouping by race when looking at health statistics is inherently racist. Race can be relevant to health outcomes, among other reasons due to racism, and so one should be allowed to discuss that.

    Deciding to ignore the problem because it predominantly affects a certain race is racist, but that wasn't what was stated in the quote earlier in this thread, despite the headline suggesting it was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Except adjusting for race is not appropriate. They are a significant portion of his constituent population. It may help explain a factor as to why it's higher in his state. But I'll bet being in a red state is also a factor given things like doctors fleeing, budget cuts, etc.

    Additionally, such stats are prone to reflecting biases in the system rather than actual medically relevant information. Do black women have worse outcomes because of biological reasons, or because they are treated worse. This is one of those stats you have to be careful with because a nontrivial amount of time, it's damn near proof of racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's appropriate if you follow up with investigations for the reasons that is happening and look for solutions to correct that. Other than, "Have you tried not being poor?" of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Y’all need to appreciate that Louisiana’s batshit MAGAs finally ran the table and it’s something like a mix of Florida and Mississippi but with a lot more heat and pollution.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    After midterms, especially if the republicans manage to cheat enough to still gain seats, some of them will go "N****r, n****r, n****r!" on live television, then racists will go "We're so fucking back!", then work on how to strip black Americans of their human rights with the help of Clarence Thomas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    A Louisiana Senator saying something racist? Not News worthy.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Donald Trump and his Nazi ass bullshit let people like this walk and talk free. Fuck all of them.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That's who these people are and they're fucking all over the US. They're everywhere. The Confederacy is alive and well in the US. Are they making a comeback? Just look at people like Hegseth, and we all know these types voted for trump.

  • source
  • 21 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 44 points 1 year ago

    Articles from 2022 citing 'if Roe is overturned' are a bit past their expiration date.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago

    This article is from 2022, for anyone wondering before you click

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm sure he doesn't think this sounds racist

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I mean, it's probably mostly a distraction from the real issue, which is they have a huge population who can't afford to access to quality Healthcare (regardless of race). I'm sure their numbers would look even better if they excluded all poor people, but he'd rather stir up race issues than class issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Weep at the fact that America is a country where a senator thinks that's an okay thing to say

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Republican Jacky Eubanks said in a recent interview with the site Church Militant

    Church…militant? That’s the most unsettling site name I’ve maybe ever seen

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    "If you correct our population for race..."

    Like the Nazis tried to do. The Republican program.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Our maternal death rates are the best if we only count white men!

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is it though? They still look higher than the national average.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    This is exactly why we don’t have sufficient public services in this country. You name it; healthcare, education, labor rights, infrastructure development.

    Because people who aren’t white would have access.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    "... which we don't. "

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Louisiana Senator: Our Maternal Death Rates Are Only Bad If You Count Our Most Vulnerable Populations

    If you ignore marginalized and oppressed citizens then all kinds of things look great! Wealth, education, home ownership, health. Why did no one think of this before?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Problem solved, then, I guess?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Three years old article.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Next, he'll propose counting them with a 60% weighting.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment