|
You also run into the whole individualism vs ~group rights~ thing. I, for one, don't want to be excluded from government money (or, for that matter receive government money, unless I were poor enough to have to accept any money I can get) based on how black/jewish/gay my ancestors were. Being sorted into the same category as some random rear end in a top hat on the street solely because their parents were kinda similar to my parents is loving insulting.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 14:28
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Making blithe reference to social psychology research is silly; those sorts of experiments are incredibly difficult to do and stating that as a fact is ridiculous. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
The idea of reparations for anyone not directly impacted by something specific is frankly ridiculous. It raises a lot of questions about fairness and, if anything, will make overall racism worse and not better. Like, we know women and minorities earn 90c on a dollar or whatever. You could easily give them a small tax credit to equalize the outcome, but would this make actual discrimination better? My bet is that this would strengthen the perception among idiots that some people just can't make it on their own merit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The idea of reparations for anyone not directly impacted by something specific is frankly ridiculous. It raises a lot of questions about fairness and, if anything, will make overall racism worse and not better. An employer might just reduce their pay by a further 10%, etc, because hey there's free money to make up their pay shortfall. Discrimination for non-discriminatory reasons is cool, yo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The idea of reparations for anyone not directly impacted by something specific is frankly ridiculous. It raises a lot of questions about fairness and, if anything, will make overall racism worse and not better. But black people are specifically impacted by all kinds of things related to their blackness all the time. Look at the studies posted earlier about resumes and callbacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:There's tons of examples. Two I can think of off the top of my head are the 1932 HOLC and 1996 PRWORA acts. The old 1932 HOLC act sounds racist in its execution (is it still on the books?), but the 1996 PRWORA act doesn't really sound racist at all. You are just unhappy that the act repealed some welfare benefits and a lot of poor black families were affected by it. I don't see how being a poor single mother is a uniquely black experience or how this act penalizes black people on welfare and not also white people on welfare. If your complaint is that expanding the welfare state would lead to poor whites being provided for over poor blacks, I don't think that you can point to things like the 1996 PRWORA acts as examples of that. If you have examples of modern welfare policies like the 1932 act, I'd be interested in hearing. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
I really don't see how "white people will get angry about it" is a good response to the idea of increasing social payments to non-white people. gently caress what the white people think if they're going to be dicks.silence_kit posted:The old 1932 HOLC act sounds racist in its execution (is it still on the books?), but the 1996 PRWORA act doesn't really sound racist at all. You are just unhappy that the act repealed some welfare benefits and a lot of poor black families were affected by it. I don't see how being a poor single mother is a uniquely black experience or how this act penalizes black people on welfare and not also white people on welfare. I said in the post that PRWORA had racist outcomes, which is something that legislation which on its face isn't racist can achieve. That said, PRWORA was targeted at 'single mothers' which is very much coded language for 'poor black mothers'. There's been a ton of handwringing about 'the breakdown of the black familiy' and 'black father absenteeism' that white families don't get. This goes all the way back to the Moynihan Report. Turns out the numbers aren't as bad because single parent is not the same as not-married parent but still. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Because the state isn't totally autonomous and actually has to take public opinion into account? Regardless of whether such opinions are valid or lovely? Also, whilst not specifically my area, I am vaguely aware that there are somewhat comparable problems with respect to Gender programmes within International Development. Gender equality work which focuses exclusively on providing benefits too/empowering women has statistically much lower success rates than those which include (and benefit) men. Resentment is a key factor. You can certainly disagree with this, and believe it unethical to take into account the view of people you consider racist, but to ignore political realities just because you think it shouldn't be that way is counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Tigey posted:Because the state isn't totally autonomous and actually has to take public opinion into account? Regardless of whether such opinions are valid or lovely? Taking white people's feelings into account re: "gently caress the Black People" is a huge part of why we have a racial equality gap to begin with. Thankfully, less white americans are racist today, maybe even less than half of americans are racist, so there may finally be a majority of non-racist americans who are willing to pass non-racist legislation. You may feel that racist policy is a political inevitiability, but I disagree that it's just 'a political reality' that Americans instinctually support inequal and racist law. e: Even a democracy doesn't always solicit public input. We don't put foreign policy or tax law on a referendum, and tax policy is often intensely unpopular. Social spending is one of those avenues where it's safe to say 'gently caress what the racists think' without being subject to tut-tutting over inclusivity. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I really don't see how "white people will get angry about it" is a good response to the idea of increasing social payments to non-white people. gently caress what the white people think if they're going to be dicks. It's not "white people will get angry about it." Nobody cares if it hurts peoples feelings, that's not the issue. There's two major issues behind that from my perspective. The first is that the perception of it being inequitable will make it much more difficult to actually pass as legislation than something that might get similar results that isn't so politically toxic. Essentially making it a waste of time and effort that would be better spent pushing something that has a shot of becoming something real someday, like investing in majority minority schools and cities more than we do now, which is a position that's very hard to argue against. I can't think of too many positions that would be as DOA in the US legislation machine as a straight up reparations suggestion. The second is that its intent is to account for a completely separate dynamic that it has 0 influence on. And that second dynamic is not static. How do you quantify racism in a number value, and how does that value account for social progress yet to be made? For instance, imagine we had accepted in the 60's that there was going to be no civil rights act, and we needed to accept that segregation and the everyday level of racism at that time were a part of life, and to account for it, we were going to provide some sort of benefits to swing the pendulum the opposite direction and balance things out a bit. That would be an enormous figure. What's an acceptable figure for the punitive damages of being treated like subhuman trash on a daily basis? I don't even know. You can't even put a price on it it's so hosed. But imagine if we had somehow magically done it perfectly, and adopted a figure that completely outweighed the negative effects of segregation and provided acceptable reparations for the abuse and hardships African Americans had to deal with in the 60's. Well how long does that figure hold up? Would it still be a justifiable system in the 90's? How about today? Of course not. Likewise, you have the nadir in the late 1800's, early 1900's, where race relations actually regressed substantially, and freedoms for African Americans got progressively more and more restricted. In that scenario, your figure would have to constantly be shifting up so as not to become outdated and racist. Social progress is constantly changing, and the figure of proper compensation would have to constantly adapt with it. Otherwise your anti-racist legislation is very quickly going to become racist one way or the other. It just comes off as really unworkable and naive. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
There are many ways that racism can be quantified. Hiring rates is one such metric, pay discrepancy is another one, promotions a third (i.e., how many minorities are in executive/management positions versus menial ones). We use many of the same metrics to combat sexism, yet that isn't nearly as opposed for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I said in the post that PRWORA had racist outcomes, which is something that legislation which on its face isn't racist can achieve. If the reasoning goes "PRWORA is racist because it is removing welfare benefits, and removing welfare benefits is a racist act because black people disproportionately are on welfare when compared to white people", then by the same reasoning, an expansion of welfare benefits will help blacks more than whites. That is the opposite of what you are trying to claim. If you are claiming that PRWORA penalized blacks on welfare because being a single mom on welfare is a uniquely black experience, you are going to have to explain that one to me. It doesn't make sense to me that there are disproportionately more black single moms than white single moms on welfare. It's more of a feature of being lower class to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you are claiming that PRWORA penalized blacks on welfare because being a single mom on welfare is a uniquely black experience, you are going to have to explain that one to me. It doesn't make sense to me that there are disproportionately more black single moms than white single moms on welfare. It's more of a feature of being lower class to me. Consider the following points: - Incarceration rates are more heavily biased towards men than women, all else equal - Incarceration rates are more heavily biased towards blacks than whites, all else equal - Incarceration rates are higher the lower in class you are (as you mentioned) - Blacks are much more likely than whites to be lower class The first point creates the "single mother" in the first place - men are much more likely to go to jail than women*. The latter two points create the scenario you're imagining - that black people are predominantly poor, and poor people are much more likely to be incarcerated. It's the second point that's evidence of racism - blacks are disproportionately incarcerated, even in comparison to whites of similar economic status. If you only fix the latter two points, then you're saying that racism is okay as long as things still improve. *Obviously this isn't the only reason for single mothers, but it is a major factor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
I think it's disingenuous to put words into peoples mouths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I think it's disingenuous to put words into peoples mouths. Your point is noted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
White people will get angry no matter what you do. The aca was seen as a handout to minorities, much like any government program is. Ill say it again. Unless you are going to do somehing that specifically targets these issues, then whatever you are going to do os going to do gently caress all. We at the very least should launch an investigation to the damage caused and solutions to remedy things other than playing guesswork and hoping poo poo will help minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If the reasoning goes "PRWORA is racist because it is removing welfare benefits, and removing welfare benefits is a racist act because black people disproportionately are on welfare when compared to white people", then by the same reasoning, an expansion of welfare benefits will help blacks more than whites. That is the opposite of what you are trying to claim. This is like the third time I've said the law had racist outcomes, but is not explicitly racist. I'm not going to respond to you in depth if you can't read and understand my posts. A law which removes benifits having a disproportionate negative impact on nonwhite persons does not imply that a law which adds benefits will have a disproportionate positive impact on nonwhite persons. Not only is this untrue historically, but it doesn't logically follow. silence_kit posted:If you are claiming that PRWORA penalized blacks on welfare because being a single mom on welfare is a uniquely black experience, you are going to have to explain that one to me. It doesn't make sense to me that there are disproportionately more black single moms than white single moms on welfare. It's more of a feature of being lower class to me. I mentioned the Moynihan Report, which concluded that black generational poverty was because of single mothers and went on to influence how people think about the way welfare is used in America.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:White people will get angry no matter what you do. The aca was seen as a handout to minorities, much like any government program is. I agree with that, government willy-waving to enforce anti-discrimination law is a good thing, and would benefit from being more aggressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Taking white people's feelings into account re: "gently caress the Black People" is a huge part of why we have a racial equality gap to begin with. Thankfully, less white americans are racist today, maybe even less than half of americans are racist, so there may finally be a majority of non-racist americans who are willing to pass non-racist legislation. You may feel that racist policy is a political inevitiability, but I disagree that it's just 'a political reality' that Americans instinctually support inequal and racist law. This is wrong. White Americans are overwhelmingly racist and indoctrinate their children with racism through nearly every channel of white culture. They also hold almost all the property and political power in the US and control its media. Waiting for them to be less racist or become a minority is not going to work. Even as a minority they will still rule, by apartheid if they have to. Racism is the foundation that America is built on, it is the reason that the American state even exists. Racial equality cannot be even remotely achieved without dismantling the American state and the American identity. It will also probably require a great deal of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:This is like the third time I've said the law had racist outcomes, but is not explicitly racist. I'm not going to respond to you in depth if you can't read and understand my posts. I understand the distinction between in principle and in practice racist policy. Forgive me for not using all of the usually used euphemisms, but I understand the ends-justify-the-means arguments social justice proponents make which are that it isn't good enough to have policies that are in principle not racist--we need to encode racism into the law so that the law preferentially benefits minorities. Sure, encoding racism in the law is kind of ugly but it is like killing one person to save a thousand and is justified in the minds of the social justice proponents. What I'm saying that unless you can demonstrate that the incidence of black single mothers in the group of black welfare recipients is significantly higher than that of white single mothers in the group of white welfare recipients, the reasoning that you use to conclude that that 1996 welfare reform act had a racist outcome undermines your earlier claim that expanding the welfare state will benefit white people more than black people. I don't necessarily agree that the 1996 welfare act had a racist outcome, except in the trivial sense that cutting welfare hurts black people more than white people since black people more likely to be on welfare. But if that's the only argument you have for it having a racist outcome, the same argument does not support the claim that expanding the welfare system will benefit whites more than blacks. In fact that argument says the opposite. Do you have evidence that the that 1996 welfare policy had a racist outcome, or do you have other examples of modern welfare policies which are in practice or even in principle racist? That would be much stronger evidence for your earlier claim that the modern welfare system is racist or has racist outcomes, to use your terminology. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Did you read the Coates piece? Part of the point of it is that the program directly targeting minorities is an acknowledgement of wrongs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yes. Fair enough on the whole acknowledgement of wrongs part, though I guess I would have to place myself somewhere alongside Woolie Wool and Rudatron on deeper reflection, saying that racism might be so intertwined with the institutions of American society in general that the whole thing could be torn apart if you try to excise it. At which point you might as well remake the whole system, to the benefit of everyone not sitting on a pile of looted gold. You're kind of touching on the emotional appeal of "All Lives Matter" - yes, the troubles that affect the poor/non-rich are real and major, but by reducing the emphasis of the racial component, you make it more likely that it continues unabated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're kind of touching on the emotional appeal of "All Lives Matter" - yes, the troubles that affect the poor/non-rich are real and major, but by reducing the emphasis of the racial component, you make it more likely that it continues unabated. This is a really weak point. Someone who is in favor of more radical and even more morally controversial policies than you with respect to eliminating racism could be saying the same thing to you, and could be questioning whether you really were opposed to racism. So what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:This is like the third time I've said the law had racist outcomes, but is not explicitly racist. I'm not going to respond to you in depth if you can't read and understand my posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
This loving thread makes me want to support some myopic France-style law where race/ethnicity/religion cannot be used in decision making or even noted down in census data ever because even that is less stupid than what people are proposing in here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're kind of touching on the emotional appeal of "All Lives Matter" - yes, the troubles that affect the poor/non-rich are real and major, but by reducing the emphasis of the racial component, you make it more likely that it continues unabated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is a really weak point. Someone who is in favor of more radical and even more morally controversial policies than you with respect to eliminating racism could be saying the same thing to you, and could be questioning whether you really were opposed to racism. So what? They're apparently not more controversial, since they would prefer it to discussing race. blowfish posted:This loving thread makes me want to support some myopic France-style law where race/ethnicity/religion cannot be used in decision making or even noted down in census data ever because even that is less stupid than what people are proposing in here. This actually proves my point. Despite the fact that France doesn't officially record any of this data, surveys show that their prisons (for one example) are disproportionately composed of Muslims, in ratios similar to Black people in the US. A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm saying that if you have the power to remake American society to such a degree, you have the power to remake it even further. To emphasize solely on racism at that point would be to deliberately gently caress over the vast majority of black people, along with everyone else. Color-blind policies are actually not of a greater degree, because they are currently being discussed while policies to actually tackle the problem of racism are not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Color-blind policies are actually not of a greater degree, because they are currently being discussed while policies to actually tackle the problem of racism are not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I have no idea how this relates to my post. Could you rephrase it? You stated: "if you have the power to remake American society to such a degree, you have the power to remake it even further. " You're assuming that reshaping American society based on economic abilities is more radical than reshaping it to get rid of racial disparities. This is not true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They're apparently not more controversial, since they would prefer it to discussing race. Discuss race then. Which is your favorite one? Me, always found mongols pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Discuss race then. Which is your favorite one? Me, always found mongols pretty cool. Again, proof that people don't want to seriously discuss race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
You start. Lay out some questions you want to get into that people in the thread don't want to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
doverhog posted:You start. Lay out some questions you want to get into that people in the thread don't want to talk about. Welfare should be expanded with additional weights given to those in traditionally disadvantaged minority groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You stated: "if you have the power to remake American society to such a degree, you have the power to remake it even further. "
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Welfare should be expanded with additional weights given to those in traditionally disadvantaged minority groups. People have been talking about that the whole thread. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are refusing to "discuss race".
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
doverhog posted:People have been talking about that the whole thread. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are refusing to "discuss race". Every response to the suggestion has been "this will needlessly aggravate people, let's talk about economics". That's not discussion. That's wanting to shut down discussion. A Buttery Pastry posted:Even further in this context meaning "Abolishing institutional racism AND capitalism", rather than merely one of them. The argument goes the other way too of course, anyone with the ability to abolish capitalism has the power to break with the racist foundations of American society too. No, this isn't true. There are lots of people who really don't like capitalism (or its effects, rather) but either don't care or actually like the racist society they inhabit (they are white, of course). There are many more people who would support ending capitalism because there are many more people who are hurt by it. 99% is more than 35%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Every response to the suggestion has been "this will needlessly aggravate people, let's talk about economics". That's not discussion. That's wanting to shut down discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's an example of a response that disagrees with you, but isn't shutting down discussion? Like if someone thinks something is bad, and they have a specific reason why they think it's bad, and further an alternative to the thing they think is bad, I don't understand what more you're expecting. "Here's something we can do that will deal with racial issues while not being what you suggested." Suggesting "racial issues aren't important" or "will be solved with economics so we don't need to care about them" is not productive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Not really related to the current topic but trying to "solve" racism by digging up everybody's genetic ancestors and measuring them on a sliding scale of blackness seems incredibly counter productive to that goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:14 |
|
|
I'm against reparations, but for systemic economic reform with policies specifically targeted at elevating minority Americans out of poverty, coupled with aggressive social remedies for the (quantifiable and obvious) inequalities they suffer in the justice system. Where does that opinion fall on the spectrum?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2016 01:55
|
|
