Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 728

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?

And why does it matter?

It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”

If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?

I think you need to do some research into why “color blindness” is considered problematic.

All I know is that I don’t spend any time wondering what guys of Irish decent like me think about something compared to guys of French decent. Seems like the reason we’re doing it with black people is because we can see the color of their skin.

I mean if we’re really interested in finding out how “they” think? We’d be scanning for what kind of tribe they came from originally. Instead of grouping them into a “group” that sort of looks the “same” to us.

I don’t know.

As long as systemic racism exists we can’t pretend that all the races are “equal” and therefore are treated exactly the same by everyone. What I mean is that, one’s situation is often very much influenced by their race, and we can’t ignore that. There are current and historic factors at play here and to neglect them out of a misguided (though well intentioned) yearning for “color blindness” is ignorant, at best.

Trust me when I say this topic has been well covered by many others (who are much smarter than me and have more relevant experience). Feel free to google.

I don’t really care if the topic’s been talked to death. I don’t really care what 50 big brains in a room think atm.

What you’re actually saying is that you don’t care what people with different perspectives (perhaps more relevant perspectives) think.

What I’m actually saying is what I actually said.

All I was pointing out was when something’s done up by race it’s racist. It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter what the intentions are. It doesn’t matter if everyone nods and accepts that it’s ok.

You say it like this is an objective matter. And it is, you’re just wrong.

Pfft

And let’s be clear. I didn’t ever say it wasn’t ok. I was mostly pointing out it’s a thing we do.

I don’t even know what this means.

Obviously

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

It’s just a way to categorize. If it’s done by race? It’s based on an assumption of that race.

You’re not even making sense. Usually surveys are self-identifying and you can choose not to disclose your race if you want.

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Exactly. If one were to survey approval ratings from those aged 18-24, that wouldn’t be ageist.

If the purpose of asking was in order to make up a way to rope that age group into some sort of “plan”? Then I’d say it probably would have a flavor of ageism going for it.

What are you talking about “some sort of plan”? What does that even mean? It’s a statistic. You can interpret however you want, but it’s actually a neutral thing.

Look. A guy calls up and wants to know what people “think”. Bases it on race. Bases it on age. Bases it on whatever category. That guy then runs with the stats and figures out sells them to whatever group wants them.

Groups buy stats in order to peddle influence. They figure out how to sway a group and then they do it.

I was pointing out if we do it on the regular? If we’re grouping people by type in order to do anything specific and point to them as a group? Well then that has a label. You want to call it statistics and paint it innocent. That’s fine.

I was giving a bit of a tongue in cheek pointer that it’s just as racist as claiming that group does anything else as a group. The fact that it’s true instead of exaggerated probably cools it a bit. But it’s still a thing we do.

Jeebus said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

So, to even acknowledge that someone is of another race is racist? I hate to be the guy that pulls out the dictionary, but that is not what racism is.

Yes. And more Wikipedia words:

“Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term “racism” does not easily fall under a single definition.”

But I was pointing out “WHY” we’re interested in finding out how 1 race is voting in one way instead of another. I was giving a soft nudge to the idea that the very fact we’re interested in “them” and “us” and “those other guys” is because there’s a basic categorizing going on. There’s a basic thing that is still at work in the background.

If there wasn’t any racism at all? We wouldn’t care less what one group of people was voting on based on the color of their skin. It just wouldn’t be relevant.

Not ever.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

It’s just a way to categorize. If it’s done by race? It’s based on an assumption of that race.

You’re not even making sense. Usually surveys are self-identifying and you can choose not to disclose your race if you want.

Trident said:

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Exactly. If one were to survey approval ratings from those aged 18-24, that wouldn’t be ageist.

If the purpose of asking was in order to make up a way to rope that age group into some sort of “plan”? Then I’d say it probably would have a flavor of ageism going for it.

What are you talking about “some sort of plan”? What does that even mean? It’s a statistic. You can interpret however you want, but it’s actually a neutral thing.

Look. A guy calls up and wants to know what people “think”. Bases it on race. Bases it on age. Bases it on whatever category. That guy then runs with the stats and figures out sells them to whatever group wants them.

Groups buy stats in order to peddle influence. They figure out how to sway a group and then they do it.

I was pointing out if we do it on the regular? If we’re grouping people by type in order to do anything specific and point to them as a group? Well then that has a label. You want to call it statistics and paint it innocent. That’s fine.

I was giving a bit of a tongue in cheek pointer that it’s just as racist as claiming that group does anything else as a group. The fact that it’s true instead of exaggerated probably cools it a bit. But it’s still a thing we do.

No one’s saying “they” do something “as a group.” You seem to completely misunderstand the point of demographic grouping, statistics, and surveys in general.

Stats is a way of grouping. And the survey’s a way of dividing what people think along racial lines.

I mean without that survey? None of us would even know there was a “black” or “white” vote.

And what’s a guy supposed to do with that information exactly?

Except try to use it to some advantage maybe?

I am not.

Trident said:

Jeebus said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

So, to even acknowledge that someone is of another race is racist? I hate to be the guy that pulls out the dictionary, but that is not what racism is.

Yes. And more Wikipedia words:

“Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term “racism” does not easily fall under a single definition.”

But I was pointing out “WHY” we’re interested in finding out how 1 race is voting in one way instead of another. I was giving a soft nudge to the idea that the very fact we’re interested in “them” and “us” and “those other guys” is because there’s a basic categorizing going on. There’s a basic thing that is still at work in the background.

If there wasn’t any racism at all? We wouldn’t care less what one group of people was voting on based on the color of their skin. It just wouldn’t be relevant.

Not ever.

Trident, agree on your fundamental point, but think the particular groupings we measure people by are reasonable. What is improper and racist is to assume that demographic stats should persist and apply to any particular member of the group. We do see that kind of racism enabled today, such as where a black conservative is especially maligned or is criticized for “acting white.”

The idea that racism is only about superiority is wrong. Stereotyping by race is racism. There is something silly in insisting upon the importance of race and maintaining it as an important measure, but there are demographic realities. Equality sure isn’t helped by insisting upon the importance of race as some kind of determinant.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not.

That sort of thing is pretty much impossible to prove in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it, so Ryan would probably have nothing to worry about. It would be an extremely rare thing to have enough evidence of illegal intent to bring a credible case to try to stop him.

But, for example, IMO it’s pretty clear the 19th Amendment passed largely due to white voters being scared of minority voters and trying to double their vote margins. Really shitty reason, leading to a truly excellent result. And Susan B Anthony gets on a damn coin for it, so at some point in history the sins of your motivations are washed clean by the results.

EDIT: Also, sometimes depending on the case, actions can be voided not on illegality, but the lack of any reasonable foundation whatsoever, or failure to follow defined process. i.e. if the Secretary of the Interior decided to rename Yellowstone National Park “Zinkeland” one afternoon, he may technically have naming authority, but the act may be void because the Department’s defined process for making these changes was not followed. These policies usually exist precisely to avoid people getting wild hairs to do things without much cause or forethought.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.

Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.

This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

EDIT: Also, sometimes depending on the case, actions can be voided not on illegality, but the lack of any reasonable foundation whatsoever, or failure to follow defined process. i.e. if the Secretary of the Interior decided to rename Yellowstone National Park “Zinkeland” one afternoon, he may technically have naming authority, but the act may be void because the defined process for making these changes was not followed. These processes usually exist precisely to avoid people getting wild hairs to do things without much forethought.

True, but I think very different!

Mrebo said:

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

Motives are taken into account all the time by courts for all sorts of reasons – criminal, civil, administrative, sanctions. Sometimes they get it wrong, I’m sure, but in cases like this, I’d say the evidence of illegal motivation has to be so ironclad that I’m not terribly concerned. I’m sure if the courts feel there’s any doubt at all about motivation, if there’s any sense at all that they’re dealing with perceived motivation rather than actual motivation, they would let the law stand. It would have to be the once-a-century unicorn case where some buffoon left around ample documentary evidence of illegal motivation for the courts to intervene.

DominicCobb said:

Trident said:

I’m just trying to imagine how this questioning goes. I mean do you ask the guy after the interview “Are you black? Oh, that’s interesting. I’ll check this box here then.” But then what is black exactly? I mean what % counts? 1/2? 1/4? 1/16?

And why does it matter?

It seems to me it only matters if someone’s trying to figure out what “they” think. Which obviously means that “they’re” a group. Which obviously means there’s a common thought being pulled from that group. Which obviously means someone somewhere will be tempted to say: “Black people think this way. Black people vote this way. Black people are this way.”

If that’s not grouping by race and labeling by race I’m not sure what is. I mean what’s the difference between being racist (judging based on race) and playing with racial statistics (predicting based on race)?

I think you need to do some research into why “color blindness” is considered problematic.

This is one of the rare occurrences where I agree with that sentiment. I do think all people, meaning individuals interacting with each other, need to be color blind but it makes perfect sense to measure how different demographics are receiving leaders or policies.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.

Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.

This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

What’s so scary about it? Shooting someone because you hate the way they look is a different scenario than shooting someone because the spirit animal of Jodie Foster told you to do it in a dream. Refusing to serve someone because they’re black (or gay) is different than refusing to serve someone because they once wronged you personally somehow.

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

Trident said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Not really. Racism, iirc, is defined as discrimination and/or antagonism against a race/races, so I don’t think demographic grouping counts.

Racism is defining something. Or assuming something. Or judging something. Based on race. It doesn’t even have to be a negative.

So, to even acknowledge that someone is of another race is racist? I hate to be the guy that pulls out the dictionary

That guy has a name, and that name is chyron.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Curious what people would think if Ryan did away with the chaplain position because he’s sick and tired of Catholics.

Most of the right things in history have been done for the wrong reasons. If you’re waiting for nobility, you’re in for a long wait, especially with this crowd.

It’s my view that merely having a bad reason for an otherwise allowed official act isn’t enough to render it void. If we were waiting for nobility, nothing would ever be done in this country.

Sometimes intent figures into legality, in which case it could be enough to at least legally void an action. But bad/stupid reasons don’t 100% overlap with illegal reasons. Hating Catholics would be an illegal reason, so in your example, the action would not be legal. Motivated by hate of the individual would be legal, or even hate of his haircut, but motivated by hate of the protected class is not. Hard to prove that in court, though, unless he was dumb enough to talk openly about it.

Intent does figure into legality but thusfar has remained subsidiary to the act itself. There are those who would like to see intent used to invalidate actions that are otherwise legal.

This is an issue raised in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Kennedy - who is on the side of thinking intent extremely important - suggested there may be “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case” based in part on a statement by a state official.

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

What’s so scary about it? Shooting someone because you hate the way they look is a different scenario than shooting someone because the spirit animal of Jodie Foster told you to do it in a dream. Refusing to serve someone because they’re black (or gay) is different than refusing to serve someone because they once wronged you personally somehow.

There’s kind of a libertarian opposition to hate crimes legislation that goes like this: “burn a church and it’s arson, but burn a church thinking certain thoughts and it’s a hate crime, ergo hate crime laws are gateways to thoughtcrime!”.

I think the problem with that analysis is that it doesn’t think about the effect of generalized intimidation. Prosecuting criminal intimidation as an individual charge typically requires a specific target, but hate crimes are designed to intimidate a broad group indiscriminately. There’s an implied “…and you could be next, because you are in a certain group” in a hate crime, and that is often the explicit intent of the criminal. Which is why it’s treated differently under the law. It really is a different type of crime with a worse impact on society, worthier of harsher sentences.

‘Donald Trump Mocked By The British Surgeon He ‘Misquoted’ During US Gun Rally’…

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-mocked_uk_5aedd6e0e4b0c4f1932314c8

‘Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal’…

Israeli agency told to find incriminating material on Obama diplomats who negotiated deal with Tehran

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/05/trump-team-hired-spy-firm-dirty-ops-iran-nuclear-deal

‘France condemns Trump over claim armed civilians could have stopped 2015 Paris attacks’…

The French government called for the memory of the victims of the attack which killed 130 people ‘to be respected’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-guns-paris-attacks-france-macron-hollander-hidalgo-a8338261.html

‘French outrage after US President Trump mimics Paris attackers’…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44017172 (with video)

A new study finds climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.

Mrebo said:

A new study finds climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.

Diving into the specifics of this study was interesting.
On a scale of 1-4, with one being never and 4 being every opportunity I have, the skeptics consistently rated themselves around 2.5 in terms of behaving in Eco-friendly ways. This is exactly in the middle. However, highly concerned and cautiously worried respondents rated themselves at 2.

I think this is indeed related to moral licensing like the study suggests, but in the opposite way they suggest. Consider this article that was linked in the paper:

Uzma Khan, a marketing professor at Stanford who studies the psychology of buying, once asked study participants to choose between buying a vacuum cleaner or designer jeans. Participants who were asked to imagine having committed a virtuous act before shopping were significantly more likely to choose jeans than those not thinking of themselves as virtuous.

“That’s the amazing thing here: People don’t even have to do good for this effect to happen,” Khan said. “Even if they plan to do something good, it will give them a boost in their self-image. Any type of situation where you have guilt involved, you will see this, and so this happens in luxury goods.”

The idea is that imagining oneself to be virtuous allows for cheating and bad behavior. The study’s authors assumed that under the theory of moral licensing people who are highly concerned or cautiously worried would view themselves as virtuous and thus increase their scores:

Other possibilities for these results involve the “Highly Concerned”: Perhaps they engaged in moral licensing (Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010), whereby their concern about climate change psychologically liberated them from engaging in (and reporting) pro-environmental behavior.

I suspect that their reasoning is backwards, for as someone who would identify themselves as highly concerned about Climate Change, I don’t feel virtuous or liberated by this view. Quite the contrary, believing in Anthropocentric Global Warming imparts the feeling of guilt on behalf of my species, exactly the type of feeling that would make people underrate their Eco-friendly behaviors. People who believe in AGW pretty much agree that humans aren’t doing enough in terms of these behaviors, themselves included.

Similarly, a person skeptical of Climate Change would be free of this guilt, and would be more likely to equivocate on their report and state an answer that was exactly in the middle of the scale.

TL:DR:
People concerned about Climate Change believe they really need to do better at buying green (and indicate this on reports), whereas skeptics place themselves comfortably right between never doing it and doing it all the time.

Oh, and the study isn’t exactly new (The data was from 2014-2015)

Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.