|
Claverjoe posted:I agree with mostly what you have to say about the lack of inevitability of reparations, but I have a different perspective on the democratic nomination. I think Bernie's nomination hinge upon a whipped up democratic minority base with the "moderate Dems" staying home, who would consider themselves reasonably satisfied with either Hillary or Bernie. I think there are more lukewarm Hillary supporters than there are lukewarm Bernie supporters, but that Bernie's (smaller group of) supporters are much more vocal about him and can possibly change things with enough enthusiasm on early victories to have a bandwagon effect on the later states. Anything to deflate that base's excitement is a net negative thing.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
pangstrom posted:Okay, fair enough and while I don't think you're right I'm not super confident you're wrong. I don't think we are doing D&D right, this is way too cordial. Either way, I sincerely hope there is some future where black people are not continually shat upon from a historical snowball of poo poo. Proper legislation can do a lot, but some of it will have to be bridged some other way, I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So in effect you're saying minorities should vote for the lesser or two evils?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Either way, I sincerely hope there is some future where black people are not continually shat upon from a historical snowball of poo poo. Proper legislation can do a lot, but some of it will have to be bridged some other way, I suspect. Proper legislation cannot dictate society's terms to society. See, e.g., Prohibition in its various iterations. In fact, attempting to legislate societal norms often leads to backlash. Viewed in a long context, there is a steady and inexorable progress toward racial equality in the US. There's a long way to go, but progress is undeniable. Being labeled a racist, rightly or wrongly, in most of today's America today is the modern-day equivalent to a scarlet letter: professionally and socially toxic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Jam tomorrow it is
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Proper legislation cannot dictate society's terms to society. See, e.g., Prohibition in its various iterations. In fact, attempting to legislate societal norms often leads to backlash. Viewed in a long context, there is a steady and inexorable progress toward racial equality in the US. There's a long way to go, but progress is undeniable. Being labeled a racist, rightly or wrongly, in most of today's America today is the modern-day equivalent to a scarlet letter: professionally and socially toxic. There are some things not amenable to legislation (the dictation of society's terms/norms to society), certainly, but a large amount of issues are helpful to equality (perhaps specifically equality-of-opportunity might be a better word for it?), such as national policing standards and practices, more and more equal education spending and welfare spending. I accept that not all extant racial problems will go away with it, and I see that as a basic statement of the people who say that such legislation isn't enough. I'm not sure reparations in the senss of favorable government policy based on race is good or desirable, but I think the idea of reparations is an expression of the idea that legislation of what I mentioned is not enough, which again, I think is a reasonable statement. I think the scarlet letter aspect analogy is fairly apt, if a touch less dangerous to the individual by some degree. kustomkarkommando posted:Jam tomorrow it is The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Two Wrongs Make a Right Or maybe, the ends justify the means. But you never hear anybody explain social justice ideology in this way. It's one vague jargon term after another and gets so confusing that even the social justice advocates get mixed up about what their jargon terms mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So in effect you're saying minorities should vote for the lesser or two evils? Hmmm minorities doing the exact same thing as everyone else, a grand problem of our times  silence_kit posted:Or maybe, the ends justify the means. But you never hear anybody explain social justice ideology in this way. It's one vague jargon term after another and gets so confusing that even the social justice advocates get mixed up about what their jargon terms mean. That's because loudly screeching social justice advocates typically don't see themselves as  the ends justify the means, gotta break some eggs to make that omelette types. Thus, they need to Basically, it's the horseshoe theory of politics in action, with the loudest wannabe activists closely approximating Deep South Republitards with the sole difference being who they want to come out on top and how honest they are about blatantly pursuing that goal. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Is Sanders really an evil? The lesser of two evils usually applies to US presidential elections because on the one side you have someone who wants to screw everyone not rich, white, straight, male, while the other side just want to screw everyone not-rich or at least fairly well off, though whether they feel like lifting a finger on social issues is another matter. Someone who wants to deal with police brutality and poverty can't really be classified as evil in my book, at least he explicitly argues in favor of and campaigns on issues which are a net-positive for like every single minority in the US, especially the poorer ones. Sure, he's not the social justice messiah, but I really don't think you can define him as an evil, even if only the lesser of two. Saying "shut up about your issues because the other side is horrible and won't listen to you anyway" is kind of an evil, yeah. I mean granted it seems like his supporters are mainly the ones saying that, but then it just becomes "why should minorities associate themselves with Bernie supporters".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't know if reparations is actually a central part of social justice ideology and I don't know if rudatron totally buys into social justice ideology, but yeah the entire social justice jargon is designed to obfuscate the fact that social justice proponents want to write racism into the law to allow for more expedient social improvement of minorities. blowfish posted:Two Wrongs Make a Right computer parts posted:The end result is desired, the issue is that there are certain confounding factors that would lead to disparities between races existing even if (on paper) it was executed perfectly. blowfish posted:...Thus, they need to Don't earnestly invoke "horseshoe theory" ever tia
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Saying "shut up about your issues because the other side is horrible and won't listen to you anyway" is kind of an evil, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Except it's more like "Let's start off with easier (though not easy) to implement policies, which despite not being everything you want, would still represent a clear improvement in the lives of the majority of minority lives." Succeeding in those goals will to some degree empower minorities politically, as improving living conditions have a habit of doing (not to mention the possibility of fewer African-Americans being disenfranchised through the wonders of the American justice system). Except relative to the rest of society, they wouldn't be more empowered. They would slip behind, because poor whites would get richer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I've read TNC's deflections, I wanted to know whether you were gullible enough to believe them or, better, whether you could explain your own opinions in your own words. Saying I am gullible implies that TNC is trying to lie to me about something or fool me into thinking something. Also, being criticized about something can be damaging, but that doesn't mean you withhold criticism. Also, being so focused on income inequality that you ignore the methods in which race works within our society is perpetuating that inequality. He and I have explained several times how race can easily be overlooked if looking through a purely economic lens and he wasn't the first one to pick up on that. BLM did as well. Also, you are asking for minorities to put aside their agenda in order to help other people, but it is never the other way around. This isn't the first time this whole economics will equalize us stuff has been pushed. I don't really know why you get the impression that TNC is in Hillary's pocket when he basically is attempting to go even further to the left of Bernie Sanders. I don't know why that seems to be a problem when it is talking about race, but not for any of Bernie's positions. You are implying that TNC thinks Bernie's ignorance of these issues is about malice, when he thinks its about political expediency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:It is if he wants a legislated solution. I do not doubt that Ta Neshi Coats has the ability to sway people, otherwise he'd probably never have gotten his reputation in the first place. The Southern Strategy works because it stops the bad optics of water hoses and dogs, but it keeps stuff like redlining and job discrimination. Poor whites tend not to be affected as much by it which is the whole intent. So doing more of it, really isn't going to solve the problem. Race needs to be in the conversation if any meaningful change is going to occur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Except relative to the rest of society, they wouldn't be more empowered. They would slip behind, because poor whites would get richer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Poor whites represent a much smaller part of the rest of society than poor blacks do in the black community, thus improvements that target poor people will disproportionally favor black people. (Unless the system is discriminatory enough to offset this disproportionality.) Poor whites are a larger part of society than poor blacks. And you're still not making poor blacks middle class, you're just making them less poor. Nothing you said has indicated that they'll get a middle class lifestyle. Indeed, the opposite might be true - as poor whites become middle class, they may force out the existing middle class blacks into the bottom 20%. computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Saying "shut up about your issues because the other side is horrible and won't listen to you anyway" is kind of an evil, yeah. What's the alternative? Accelerationism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Poor whites represent a much smaller part of the rest of society than poor blacks do in the black community, thus improvements that target poor people will disproportionally favor black people. (Unless the system is discriminatory enough to offset this disproportionality.) Yeah, someone earlier tried to argue that welfare was racist and that we we needed race-preferential welfare. His only modern evidence was that a welfare cut in 1996 disproportionately affected black people, but any sort of cut to welfare will do that and if you use the same reasoning you are obligated to conclude that extending welfare benefits actually disproportionately benefits black people. He didn't say much after that. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What's the alternative? Accelerationism? The alternative to what? Bernie not listening or Bernie listening?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
What if we merely made blacks poor, instead of crushing generational poverty from which their kids will never escape, forever and forever? I realize it's not much but a good place to start would be the school systems and providing as much support as possible through free pre-k, busing, more free meals and more direct cash infusion into the worst schools. Maybe try to make schools locuses of black communities. Then add more supports like full time counselors, AP exam tutors, assistance with navigating the college application maze, and generally try to salvage a generation. Families would still be poor at the end of it, but it wouldn't be the educational black hole of previous generations. It's not much, but it's a start. It'd even be racially focused while not having to explicitly say it, because you just pick the worst performing schools and it's basically the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The alternative to what? Bernie not listening or Bernie listening? To minority voters not associating with or voting for Bernie because of a failure to prioritise racial justice by his campaign and/or supporters. E. I think I misinterpreted your post, sorry. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Poor whites are a larger part of society than poor blacks. computer parts posted:And you're still not making poor blacks middle class, you're just making them less poor. Nothing you said has indicated that they'll get a middle class lifestyle. Indeed, the opposite might be true - as poor whites become middle class, they may force out the existing middle class blacks into the bottom 20%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, someone earlier tried to argue that welfare was racist and that we we needed race-preferential welfare. His only modern evidence was that a welfare cut in 1996 disproportionately affected black people, but any sort of cut to welfare will do that and if you use the same reasoning you are obligated to conclude that extending welfare benefits actually disproportionately benefits black people. He didn't say much after that. No, you're not. On its face social security was for impoverished people, the gi bill was for veterans etc. But guess who ultimately was excluded. You can't just talk about these things in economic terms. What happens when the welfare offices are pulled out of black areas? What about poor whites able to get off welfare while poor blacks stay on due to job discrimination?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:No, you're not. On its face social security was for impoverished people, the gi bill was for veterans etc. But guess who ultimately was excluded. You can't just talk about these things in economic terms. What happens when the welfare offices are pulled out of black areas? What about poor whites able to get off welfare while poor blacks stay on due to job discrimination?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, so we can't assume poor blacks don't become middle class but poor whites becoming middle class is a sure thing? History shows this to be true, yes. quote:Also, your whole point here seems to be that this is a zero sum thing. Like, the lives of the bottom 20% have to, by definition, be poo poo. I mean, this is probably not wrong now, but isn't the whole point to make society flatter so "middle class" lives occupy a greater proportion of the quintiles? Would you like to point out a (preferably minority heavy) segment of society anywhere that isn't struggling? Like I'm pretty sure being a poor black/arab guy in Denmark isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Poor whites are a larger part of society than poor blacks. If you compress the wealth distribution enough then even though poor discriminated-against minorities are getting less rich than poor :whites:, they will have a sufficiently secure standard of living that things like active participation in politics have less hurdles and become possible for a large proportion of the relevant group. Again, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you compress the wealth distribution enough then even though poor discriminated-against minorities are getting less rich than poor :whites:, they will have a sufficiently secure standard of living that things like active participation in politics have less hurdles and become possible for a large proportion of the relevant group. Again, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So with full communism, everyone will be equal. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, but like, if we imagine the 1996 welfare cuts instead being the opposite, with them not having existed and the "cut" being them being implemented. Can we agree then that this would disproprotionally benefit black people? Youre trying to fit a square peg through a round hole to avoid talking about race. But I think to actually meaningfully move forward, we need to have that in the conversation. Even if it isn't plausible, we need to keep bringing it up. But to answer your question, I am confused by it. By it being implemented, do you mean welfare? As for blowfish's idea, that really does nothing to combat white supremacy and actually entrenches it. The logical conclusion is that it is ok for blacks to receive assistance as long as they are still the bottom rung of society. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So with full communism, everyone will be equal. Good to know. Rich coming from someone requiring ideological purity from likely the most sympathetic candidate in the field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Youre trying to fit a square peg through a round hole to avoid talking about race. But I think to actually meaningfully move forward, we need to have that in the conversation. Even if it isn't plausible, we need to keep bringing it up. Non-negligible numbers of white people will also receive government handouts. Just implement full mincome, it's less unrealistic in America than ~reparations~.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Non-negligible numbers of white people will also receive government handouts. Just implement full mincome, it's less unrealistic in America than ~reparations~. This skips entirely over other forms of discrimination including job discrimination, access to colleges, and housing discrimination. Reparations does not need to be monetary based. Reparations can begin by simply acknowledging that we have a race problem and having a discussion about it, and then we can start seeing what reparations will be. But all of this bullshitting about economics and poo poo misses the boat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:History shows this to be true, yes. computer parts posted:Would you like to point out a (preferably minority heavy) segment of society anywhere that isn't struggling? Like I'm pretty sure being a poor black/arab guy in Denmark isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows. Like, education for example. Schools aren't paid for on a district by district basis, meaning funding isn't super loving skewed like in the US. At the same time, to combat the issue of large concentrations of children from immigrant backgrounds in schools, which hampers learning and integration efforts, the state has actually taken to busing these kids to what would otherwise basically be 100% middle-to-upper-middle-class ethnically Danish schools. In terms of welfare, the level is basically at "can pay rent, and buy food and clothes, though not particularly nice ones or in particularly attractive neighborhoods." Not talking massively terrible or unsafe neighborhoods here, just slightly run down and incredibly boring. (Which goes for their lives too, since there is basically no money left for anything fun.) It's clear lower class living, but on a different level on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That said, we do have a clear problem of inter-generational poverty affecting immigrants far more than ethnic Danes, so even if being on welfare means you won't be completely hosed, it isn't of course an excuse to ignore that issue. Plus of course general racism, especially from the police, though luckily they're far far far less likely to actually use a gun, and our justice system is far less draconian than the American, so non-ethnic Danes don't get hosed as hard by racism on that front. *Alongside trying to scare everyone that seems kinda Muslim that hasn't settled here yet away. computer parts posted:So with full communism, everyone will be equal. Good to know. blackguy32 posted:But to answer your question, I am confused by it. By it being implemented, do you mean welfare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
How does the country's changing demographic makeup factor into things? Reparations are typically framed as a white/black matter, but the percentage of black Americans will go up by only .6% according to census.gov between 2014 and 2060, while the proportion of Hispanic Americans will to 28.6% and Asian will increase to 9.1%. America will become minority majority but black Americans will be no greater a proportion of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:The Southern Strategy works because it stops the bad optics of water hoses and dogs, but it keeps stuff like redlining and job discrimination. Poor whites tend not to be affected as much by it which is the whole intent. So doing more of it, really isn't going to solve the problem. Race needs to be in the conversation if any meaningful change is going to occur. But it sure avoids the bad optics of "lets give money to black people because of stuff that happened in the past to other black people". Like I said, bizzaro Atwater to the benefit of black people. blackguy32 posted:This skips entirely over other forms of discrimination including job discrimination, access to colleges, and housing discrimination. That's the thing though, legislation is much, much more capable of controlling economics effects and much less capable of effecting people's feelings and perceptions. That's something that came up earlier. "Job discrimination" has a anti-discrimination laws on the books, but they ultimately need to be pursued by the aggrieved party. "access to colleges" is something that is can be alleviated by making public universities paid for by taxes, with grades and generalized test scores forming the basis of admission. If you are wanting to gain entry to private universities at some undefined rate you want, then I don't know what to say to that, unless you are advocating for the revocation of charters for such universities that do not comply to standards that would be set(and I doubt I could in good conscience support such a thing). "Housing discrimination" is it's own issue, that much of the housing value is based in the perception of things like "good schools" and "access to amenities" which are a thing that is based on feelings of the people. Legislation can work on more affordable housing, such as rent control or land trusts, but you cannot legislate people's opinions. I, and I suspect I am not alone, believe you when you say there is more than just an economic (or legal, with regards to policing and criminal law) aspect to the negatives of being black in America. However I don't think that the government is truly capable of achieving what you want. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:But it sure avoids the bad optics of "lets give money to black people because of stuff that happened in the past to other black people". Like I said, bizzaro Atwater to the benefit of black people. Guess how much of those feelings and opinions are based on whether or not there are black people in the neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Guess how much of those feelings and opinions are based on whether or not there are black people in the neighborhood. ...Which was his point
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:"access to colleges" is something that is can be alleviated by making public universities paid for by taxes, with grades and generalized test scores forming the basis of admission. Standardized tests are racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Guess how much of those feelings and opinions are based on whether or not there are black people in the neighborhood. Exactly, and I'm totally fine with the presumption that the cost of a house can and does decrease with the number of black people in the neighborhood due to racism, irrespective of their economic class. You can't legislate away perceptions. I think we may be agreeing past each other here. Let us expand on this: What law could possibly be followed where "housing values can't go down just because there is a black person living in the neighborhood." How would you phrase that law? How could it be enforced? How could you establish causation to the degree of making a civil suit if some white (or any non-black?) person listed their house on this hypothetical neighborhood, couldn't sell it at a given price and then lowered it? Could you force the person to not lower the price on a house? The government is a mighty hammer, but it's poo poo for putting in a screw. silence_kit posted:Standardized tests are racist. And can totally be overhauled to minimize such. It's not like people don't gently caress around with them ever 10 years or so anyway. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:And can totally be overhauled to minimize such. It's not like people don't gently caress around with them ever 10 years or so anyway. Oh, I was just posting that flippantly to prempt someone else in the thread going on a spiel on the subject. I think that is kind of overstating things. Now please allow me to go on a spiel on the subject. Honestly, I think the ACT is a pretty good test. IIRC, they didn't really have knowledge recall questions and just asked you to read passages and charts and asked you questions about how you interpret them. And the math section had you doing pretty normal high school math problems. I mean, true, it is impossible to totally divorce aptitude from knowledge recall, but I think that at least the ACT does a pretty good job of not being a trivia competition. Honestly, I think that people like to make excuses for not doing well on tests: "I'm not a good test-taker!" etc. etc. People who get really bad scores on standardized tests really do not know how to read and do math very well. I know someone who teaches nursing at a pretty low-tier college in the US which accepts people with below average scores and she complains about how her students can barely read and can't do simple arithmetic to determine drug doses. I suspect that the test scores correlate with reading and math ability pretty well. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:History shows that poor whites become middle class? Anyway, what is actually with this focus on middle class status? Like, it feels like every second suggestion by the "broad welfare" crowd is shot down by some argument related to the middle class or black professionals, which seems kinda weird, since poor blacks like a billion times worse off than middle class blacks. Not saying those aren't important issues, but it kinda feels like people putting their foot down because they won't personally see as much benefit from a strategy that starts with the worst off black people and then works its way up. This is funny in light of the primary complaint of reparations being that the whites would put their feet down because they won't personally see as much benefit from the strategy that starts with the worst off people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 05:11
|
|