Likewise never being there but reasoning that they’ll thank you because you provided in abundance their every want and need is generally not healthy for anyone either.
Balance and purpose. Love with purpose. Work in a way that allows you to reach your goals. Be there when your kids need you, be there when your spouse or friends need you. Be there when your career and maintaining your life needs you, and be there for yourself when you need you. You may not have enough time on the day for all those things and might have to prioritize and compromise.

.. you’re sacrificing now for the future, and personally that’s a lesson I think kids need to learn- elated gratification and patience. You can Pat yourself on the back all you want while not being able to provide opportunities and not having the means to recover if one financial thing goes wrong because you were there almost constantly while stressing about money and saying “even if they don’t remember today they’ll remember I was there” but most research suggests no. That’s not true. There is a threshold of “enough” and being there more than that can be harmful for the child and you.
Children tend to do better as adults when they have a balance of love and attention and guidance as well as time to be individuals and develop healthy expectations of relationships.

Here is a disturbing example. Your parent is a popular and acclaimed porn star/escort.
So they are most likely attractive, wealthy, and good in bed. Almost anyone who has sex with them would say it felt good. If you have sex with them- chances are it would feel good. Do you want to have sex with your parent? Do they turn you on? Probably not.
So if you believe that you must or should try a sex act to know of you like it or to confirm your sexuality- you must commit incest to prove that you are not incestuous too. Or maybe the idea is patently foolish. I still giggled at the joke so don’t take it too seriously- but the logic is a clear miss.

So the sorts of regulations we need are ones to set standards- actual standards reflective of not a minimum but what any given person in society would want the standard to be when it was them who needed something. Standards that push improvement. And of course- we need regulation to both support local economies and jobs while also preventing abusive and unethical pricing. We need to de commoditize certain essentials and prerequisites and create better systems that don’t simply incentivize profiteering on necessities.

There is of course push back against the idea of government healthcare- and the are some valid concerns there, but the US government already pays 70-80%+ of the PRIVATE health care costs. Let it sink in that we are already primarily funding health care at a government level but have little say or control over the industry or spending of these tax dollars- while companies and by extensions executives and share holders or partners receive record setting personal pay outs for continually declining quality of care.

Leading up to government mandated health insurance industry insiders and many in the public shed tears over all the money the health care industry would lose. How will they even afford to eat? And then afterwards… record profits. My health insurance and that of everyone I know save a couple people has only gone up and coverage has only gotten worse. Staffing issues abound in the industry and yet… profits are healthy and personal wealth is exploding for those at the top. I can’t as a consumer refuse to participate in the whole mess, and the bar they set for requirements on “affordable options” or offering alternative options is so low and so disorganized and convoluted and confusing that consumers are for the most part now a captive market forced to buy goods for whatever price the companies want to charge.

It is not a coincidence that near the end of the last century we saw sweeping deregulation and coinciding to that deregulation in industry we started to see an increasing consolidation of wealth amongst a smaller percentage of the population and increasing issues with finances in the economy and to those not in the upper earnings brackets. Deregulation is touted as a boon to the little guy and in some cases it can be- but what we have seen and continue to see is deregulation which is aimed at creating opportunity and wealth for the wealthy. Don’t think the democrats get a pass as they are usually the ones pushing regulation. The “well meaning” regulation set to “get us back on track” has itself been a tool to funnel money to the “right people.”

Housing is ideally 30% or less of your budget. A sound financial calculation would say that with good credit, a person making $150k a year could afford a $400k home.
Find a $400k home within 50 miles of San Francisco or Silicon valley. You have people making $150k a year with $700k+ mortgages. Making the money available- agreeing to loans at 2x or more what a person could reasonably be expected to afford is part of the problem as sellers can charge $700k when they know average buyers can get that in credit- but why are we letting houses sell for $700k?
You can’t just throw money into the pot and let it sort itself out.

While news of unprecedented homelessness and vagrant encampments and failure to be able to afford basic things sweeps the nation we see record numbers of newly minted billionaires reaching new heights of wealth surpassing the richest before them. If you give people more money to buy houses, houses become more expensive. Look to California where 10-20 years ago homes 50- 100 miles from major cities were close to national averages even when in the urban centers homes were above averages. Fast forward and the places people used to move to be able to afford to live or own a home went from $200k to $1 million in a decade or less. Plenty of people in those areas make quarter or more millions a year of have millions in stocks, and as the number of people who could call themselves millionaires increased, houses ballooned.

Indeed. “Raise the minimum wage and solve all these problems!” Oh. That’s how that works. If you force a store to have 50% off sales every Friday that doesn’t stop them from raising their prices 300% at 11:59pm Thursday night. Amidst historically low wages we saw record profits. Amidst massive recession we saw massive profits. Amidst lay offs and mandatory wage hikes we saw massive profits. The greatest recession in modern times was literally caused by unethical and unsustainable business practices that produced… record profits. Then the rules were changed to help prevent that same scenario and we saw those same companies adapt to the rules to make.. record profits. Despite growing legislation to raise wages and supposedly protect consumers we have seen increasingly bad metrics for satisfaction and finances among consumers while seeing.. record profits.

When you say or imply that Jewish people are to blame- you are inherently accusing that a similar conspiracy organized across all or the majority of Jewish persons has been enacted to consolidate control and wealth for Jewish persons while keeping out those who are not Jewish. It is a simple matter to say that is not the case in most all instances where such accusations are made historically. There is more nuance to it than that but this is the tldr so I’m not getting into it- it is a simple matter of established facts and circumstance. Simple reasoning. A dirt bag is a dirt bag regardless of the larger group you might put them in, and any group can have dirt bags relative to the group. You can split hairs all you want but when you implicate a group the group must actually be culpable of the implication otherwise you have individuals who happen to be able to be classified in a larger group.

Tl:dr- in america we are often ok with a general indictment of “white privilege” or privileged whites because that is a group. A unit. We have TONS of proof and evidence that self identified whites actively conspired as a group to consolidate wealth and power while marginalizing others we have evidence and proof through most of American history the majority of self identified white people actively participated in or were complicit in a structured and organized effort to consolidate power and wealth for “whites.” They supported and even championed laws and practices and social systems and economic systems to consolidate wealth and power to whites and deny it to others. In a specific bid to keep anyone not white out or maintain a general status based on the drawing of racial lines.

But beyond that the relevance has to factor in how their race has anything to do with the issue. So…. In conclusion and

there might factor in to sentencing and consideration but we can’t generally say they excuse the crime. But understanding why this person and perhaps why disproportionately in generally a certain group is represented in those statistics can not only help us mitigate those crimes but also perhaps address underlying inequities or issues in society.
So when it is ok to say “Latinos this” “whites this” “Asians this” or so forth? When is it ok to blame the Jewish people for something…?
At the least the information needs to be relevant. Being wronged by an individual generally doesn’t implicate all similar individuals or a group. Being wronged by a group like gymnasts doesn’t implicate the dominant race in gymnastics representation or administration.

Ignorance and prejudice. So we must be careful when speaking on race that race is even relevant. As detailed above often race is not. Though race CAN be relevant and because race is a construct as discussed, when race IS relevant that can often end in a deduction that disparity is caused by some racially motivated bias or inequity.
So it’s tricky in that race can be important but isn’t always important. Can be relevant but isn’t always. It is tricky because of various sensitivities and historical realities.
And of course, the fact that racism exists doesn’t change reality. There is a racial stereotype that whites are white collar criminals. To assume a white collar crime was committed by a white suspect because whites are predisposed or disproportionately represented in white collar crime is racist- but if you catch a white person red handed doing a white collar crime- we also can’t say it is racist to convict them of the crime they did actually commit. The circumstances that led

There is an entire history around the concept of black men and the fragility of certain other men, we spoke on myths of African ancestry and physical prowess, “big penis” is a common joke/belief relating to “black” people, many traditional myths essentially reinforce the idea of physically powerful, imposing, dangerous, often un intelligent racial identity. Multiple cultures in America for example have various taboos and paranoias about “black men stealing their women” or such- being with a woman after a black man etc. the penis thing and the size thing and the violence thing and all of those myths are tied to this concept of the big black boogie man whom oftej in these conceptions is only vested or kept at bay by superior intelligence or culture. So that story of the “big black man” standing too close or coming out of nowhere or challenging you to a fight or whatever- that extraneous detail of “race” is a clear example of where there is a bias and entertaining that bias is reinforcing

or shapes perception. “I’m at the store and this Mexican boy is crying because his father was deported..” in a story about or relating to immigration policy at the US Mexico border- that’s important. He isn’t a Hungarian child, he is being impacted by something specific and your story relates your feelings on that or is attempting to convey your view point to others.
“So I’m at the ATM and this big black guy is behind me and I’m scared…”
If you are scared someone might rob you at an atm, their race is not important to the story unless you believe that race is inherently more likely to rob you, or that you believe your listener believes that and so the detail makes the event more valid or conveys through empathy a feeling of fear. “Big black guy” is historically and even presently a common “boogie man” used when someone wants to impart a sense of danger or dominance. The two are often used together in that context.

So rave is this imprecise and I’ll defined thing already, but we as humans have some necessity in cognition to quickly and generally group things and people for identification and classification so as a letter of convenience or necessity, we use these systems as suits a given demographic or individual.
So there are factors in determining the potential relevance of race and we do have to be careful that we are not only using the grouping correctly and in a way that makes sense, but that the grouping needs to be used at all.
It’s the “story rule,” if someone cuts you off in traffic and you mention their “race” or such- unless that detail is relevant to the story you wouldn’t mention it. In your mind, or to your thinking the mind of the listener, that detail is either of material importance

beliefs have strong history and prominence. General “white” is often conflated to Western Europe and a linguistic history stemming from Latin or a narrow band of latin influenced roots. Asia as a continent is huge and diverse and as a region or grouping more so. There is a lot of complex history there and likewise there are many differences in history and culture and language and religion and other key aspects between “Asian” cultures and groups, genetic differences and more that don’t strongly connect for thousands of years perhaps even. So it is often a matter of convenience or what is most familiar that drives any particular person or wider group to create these distinctions by which they label “races.”

To that same- in many parts of the world- the Philippines and Mexico, parts of South America etc, they may consider reven those of their “racial group” to be “black” and use the term “black” to refer to dark skinned country men who may have very similar ancestry but are… darker. “White” can be a broad group and at various times and places many of asian ancestry are or have been considered “white” while at other times or places they are “othered” or slurred as a separate race and at other times are considered to be “POC” etc. it depends who you ask and where and when. “White” can be an ethnic Eastern European country or a non specific ethnicity of Americans or EU citizens with lighter skin tone. When we look at the history and culture of certain Eastern European countries they can vary greatly from a general non ethnic specific “white” history and culture. Non specific “white” is generally conflated to ties to Christianity- where especially in certain white ethnicities Islam or other

Many black people have curly and/or textured hair but not all do and people have curls or texture who are not “black.”
So it isn’t skin color that defines “black” in America- and there are those of predominantly African or other ancestry who have very light complexion but may self identify or be identified as “black.” Of course there aren’t genes that identify people as “black” though in America the term often conflates to some form of African ancestry. Filipinos may self identify as many “races” or groups including “Filipino” “Asian” “Pacific Islander” etc. there are those within the Filipino community who do not consider themselves Pacific Islander or do not consider themselves Asian and there are Asians who don’t consider Filipinos Asian or Pacific Islanders who don’t consider Filipinos Pacific Islanders. Who decides?

So there are layers and complexities and context.
The overall point is that race and discussion of it are tricky subjects. Even race itself is subject to interpretation as race is an artificial grouping that doesn’t rely on any well defined and exclusive universal things. Race most often groups people by some arbitrary similarities in appearance traits and sometimes overlaps cultural or generic histories but ultimately we can constantly see across the globe those many cases where there are questions of where to categorize certain groups or differences in whom is categorized as what. Mexicans and Thai and Filipino can be quite dark skinned but in the US are not generally considered “black” outside or within their groups for example.