Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Conservativism Libertarians &Racism

governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2010 9:51:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think this is a really interesting article:

http://www.timwise.org...

In it the author argues that conservative ideology is at its core racist. To distill the argument to limit complaints about the length of the article, it essentially boils down to looking at the existence of social inequalities coupled to the conservative argument that all barriers are gone and all achievements are about merit. If everything is accomplished by merit than to explain social inequalities one needs to resort to explanations that rely on biological or cultural inferiority, which are the definition of racism.

Discuss.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2010 10:07:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
cultural inferiority,
Define culture in a manner both determined by race and exhaustive of all possible explanations for something other than the biological, or the claim goes nowhere.

Also, it's a silly assumption that it is unavoidable to explain things, yet the reduction depends upon that.

Also, no libertarian, dunno about conservative will claim that "all barriers are gone" unless they severely misunderstand the nature of the present government. It may not be an explicitly race defined barrier, but it's certainly a barrier to merit.

Also, inertia is not a barrier, one can simultaneously claim that inertia has some share of explanation for present inequalities and that all barriers are gone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 10:17:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/1/2010 10:07:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
cultural inferiority,
Define culture in a manner both determined by race and exhaustive of all possible explanations for something other than the biological, or the claim goes nowhere.

I think he was repeating the argument that Tim Wise is making in the article: that if conservatives don't want to acknowledge racism exists, and want to believe that only merit determines one's status, then they're essentially arguing that minorities must be inherently biologically or culturally inferior (which is racist) for not achieving the same status as whites. Anyway I don't know exactly what you're saying in response; I just was making sure you knew he was repeating the argument.

Also, it's a silly assumption that it is unavoidable to explain things, yet the reduction depends upon that.

Wha?

Also, no libertarian, dunno about conservative will claim that "all barriers are gone" unless they severely misunderstand the nature of the present government. It may not be an explicitly race defined barrier, but it's certainly a barrier to merit.

They do.

Also, inertia is not a barrier, one can simultaneously claim that inertia has some share of explanation for present inequalities and that all barriers are gone.

Well then it goes back to the first point: that if they claim minorities are plagued by inertia, then they're assuming them to be biologically or culturally inferior to whites who are not. I think the whole point is not to use one's race as the basis for any kind of mass generalization...
President of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 11:10:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/1/2010 9:51:21 PM, governments_kill wrote:
cultural inferiority

European culture generally is inferior to Asian culture, as far as gearing children for success. See Malcolm Gladwell - Outliers.

I think in a colorblind society, it's expected that people compare individuals, rather than looking at broader statistical trends, because these generally reflect failures due to past inequalities.

In capitalism, we expect equality of opportunity. To expect equality of results is to be communist.

It's possible to tip the balance too far in the other direct and have to tip it back. Many more women earn college degrees now than men. Should men get affirmative action?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 11:18:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 10:17:16 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/1/2010 10:07:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
cultural inferiority,
Define culture in a manner both determined by race and exhaustive of all possible explanations for something other than the biological, or the claim goes nowhere.

I think he was repeating the argument that Tim Wise is making in the article: that if conservatives don't want to acknowledge racism exists, and want to believe that only merit determines one's status, then they're essentially arguing that minorities must be inherently biologically or culturally inferior (which is racist) for not achieving the same status as whites. Anyway I don't know exactly what you're saying in response
Tim Wise did not appear to define culture in the article, so I don't either.

Also, it's a silly assumption that it is unavoidable to explain things, yet the reduction depends upon that.

Wha?
Who needs to explain economic inequality? "This percent of whites did this much. This percent of blacks did this much." No need to tie it into biology or culture. Who cares? Just how individual choices happened to aggregate.


Also, no libertarian, dunno about conservative will claim that "all barriers are gone" unless they severely misunderstand the nature of the present government. It may not be an explicitly race defined barrier, but it's certainly a barrier to merit.

They do.
Some might.


Also, inertia is not a barrier, one can simultaneously claim that inertia has some share of explanation for present inequalities and that all barriers are gone.

Well then it goes back to the first point: that if they claim minorities are plagued by inertia, then they're assuming them to be biologically or culturally inferior to whites who are not.
Facepalm.

Inertia here is inheritance. Minorities aren't plagued by it on average, but some whites (enough to change the averages) are, erm, anti-plagued by it. The fact that you don't inherit isn't a barrier. But the fact that you do is a boon.

Now granted, one could then say that racism (or more precisely, familism, which is essentially the same thing with a lot more granularity) benefits whites-- but it does so without stopping minorities from doing anything or taking anything from them.

Of course, inheritance washes out over time, and, other things equal, the effects will asymptotically approach zero. Slowly if a heavily regulated economy has anything to do with it. Especially with bailouts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 11:29:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 11:18:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Now granted, one could then say that racism (or more precisely, familism, which is essentially the same thing with a lot more granularity) benefits whites

If Paris Hilton were born black, chances are she would be a prostitute rather than a media icon.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 11:36:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 11:29:19 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:18:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Now granted, one could then say that racism (or more precisely, familism, which is essentially the same thing with a lot more granularity) benefits whites

If Paris Hilton were born black, chances are she would be a prostitute rather than a media icon.

Haha why? She would still be born rich, and class is far more pertinent than race.

Raggy I'll respond later I g2g for nao :)
President of DDO
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 3:46:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 11:18:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/2/2010 10:17:16 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/1/2010 10:07:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
cultural inferiority,
Define culture in a manner both determined by race and exhaustive of all possible explanations for something other than the biological, or the claim goes nowhere.

I think he was repeating the argument that Tim Wise is making in the article: that if conservatives don't want to acknowledge racism exists, and want to believe that only merit determines one's status, then they're essentially arguing that minorities must be inherently biologically or culturally inferior (which is racist) for not achieving the same status as whites. Anyway I don't know exactly what you're saying in response
Tim Wise did not appear to define culture in the article, so I don't either.

Yes I was repeating the argument that Tim Wise made in the article which i figured was clear by saying that for the sake of ease I was going to distill the arguments that Tim Wise made down and summarize them. And to think Libertarians are the highest educated political group on average in this country. I guess that doesn't say much about education's ability to teach people how to think.
And Tim doesn't define culture because his entire argument is that to use culture as an explanation is racist. He doesn't need to define culture in terms of creating disparate outcomes because the disparate outcomes come, in his and my analysis from structural racist barriers.

Also, it's a silly assumption that it is unavoidable to explain things, yet the reduction depends upon that.

Wha?
Who needs to explain economic inequality? "This percent of whites did this much. This percent of blacks did this much." No need to tie it into biology or culture. Who cares? Just how individual choices happened to aggregate.


I'm dying over here. I was going to be nice until I read this comment. This is just hilarious. Who cares that black folks are i forget how many times more likely to be incarcerated. Who cares that black folks have a lower life expectancy than whites? Clearly you don't, but that doesn't mean that no one does. Apparently you have no need to tie it into anything because you can't see groups or whatever your ideological commitment is keeps you from seeing that black folks have substantially less wealth than white folks per capita in the aggregate pick your indicator black folks aren't in a pretty economic situation and were disproportionately hit by the recession, meaning that indicator is going to jump even further out of whack in the future. Saying that that is a result of aggregate choices is socially irresponsible and reprehensible. This isn't a choice between pizza and steak, it's an issue between white owners and black workers. So if it's just how individual choices happen to aggregate what you're saying is that black people SUCK at making choices. Like if I offer to give them 1000 or they can give me 50 dollars, then they will choose to give me 50 dollars. Either this argument is a lie to cover up your ideological commitment to institutional racism, or you're as dumb as an ox. I sincerely hope that it's the latter.


Also, no libertarian, dunno about conservative will claim that "all barriers are gone" unless they severely misunderstand the nature of the present government. It may not be an explicitly race defined barrier, but it's certainly a barrier to merit.

They do.
Some might.

The entire premise of the argument is that racial inequalities exist. What kind of barrier would disproportionately affect people of color if it's not an explicitly racial barrier. Again stop wasting time with stupid comments.


Also, inertia is not a barrier, one can simultaneously claim that inertia has some share of explanation for present inequalities and that all barriers are gone.

Well then it goes back to the first point: that if they claim minorities are plagued by inertia, then they're assuming them to be biologically or culturally inferior to whites who are not.

Actually Lwerd this was one of the less racist arguments. Let's break down inertia. So objects in motion are likely to remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force and objects at rest blah blah blah. I'm at this point guessing what the hell you mean by this but I'll try my best.

If inertia is your primary argument then you need to change your ideological commitments. Because if you're talking about inertia than the inequalities that existed from slavery through Jim Crow through the modern day where explicit economic preferences were crafted for whites, like the GI bill, like the Homestead Act, like redlining, etc. etc. then inertia would explain why the inequalities persist and have accumulated. What it fails to explain is why people of color haven't made headway with. That's the structural racism that persists to this day. Like banks push predatory subprime mortgages on families of color that could qualify for prime rates. Like job discrimination that persists to this day. Like housing discrimination, which complicates the school picture and etc. etc. But I'll give inertia the benefit of the doubt. To make your society fair, you need to put everybody back at home. All that crap that was gotten unfairly isn't deserved and people should be forced to give it up. Else in your society white folks wake up on third while black folks just stepped into the batter's box. Does that sound like a good society or one worth fighting for?

Facepalm.

Inertia here is inheritance. Minorities aren't plagued by it on average, but some whites (enough to change the averages) are, erm, anti-plagued by it. The fact that you don't inherit isn't a barrier. But the fact that you do is a boon.

Now granted, one could then say that racism (or more precisely, familism, which is essentially the same thing with a lot more granularity) benefits whites-- but it does so without stopping minorities from doing anything or taking anything from them.

Of course, inheritance washes out over time, and, other things equal, the effects will asymptotically approach zero. Slowly if a heavily regulated economy has anything to do with it. Especially with bailouts.

Actually inheritance doesn't wash out over time, because black folks were barred from owning. So get off your Friedmanite high horse and come grapple with reality. The wealth disparities have been steadily growing and Reagan's little experiment in massive wealth redistribution upwards steadily escalated it. So try again. If you own, you gain wealth by sitting on your bum. If you work you probably aren't even gaining wealth. So tell me again how that's worth any moral fiber?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 6:39:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 11:36:07 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:29:19 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/2/2010 11:18:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Now granted, one could then say that racism (or more precisely, familism, which is essentially the same thing with a lot more granularity) benefits whites

If Paris Hilton were born black, chances are she would be a prostitute rather than a media icon.

Haha why? She would still be born rich, and class is far more pertinent than race.

Haha, I meant statistically based on the above assertion that blacks have fewer large family estates. And also cuz she's a huge whore.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 6:46:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 3:46:38 PM, governments_kill wrote:

And Tim doesn't define culture because his entire argument is that to use culture as an explanation is racist. He doesn't need to define culture in terms of creating disparate outcomes because the disparate outcomes come, in his and my analysis from structural racist barriers.

I didn't say he need to define culture in terms of creating disparate outcomes, I said he needed to DEFINE CULTURE, no further qualifiers. To argue that to use culture as an explanation is racist requires that culture MEAN SOMETHING and that that something imply racism here.


Also, it's a silly assumption that it is unavoidable to explain things, yet the reduction depends upon that.

Wha?
Who needs to explain economic inequality? "This percent of whites did this much. This percent of blacks did this much." No need to tie it into biology or culture. Who cares? Just how individual choices happened to aggregate.


I'm dying over here. I was going to be nice until I read this comment. This is just hilarious. Who cares that black folks are i forget how many times more likely to be incarcerated. Who cares that black folks have a lower life expectancy than whites? Clearly you don't, but that doesn't mean that no one does.
It does mean that the claim that people who don't explain it your way will explain it in a racist way is useless.

Apparently you have no need to tie it into anything because you can't see groups
I've never met a group called black people or a group called white people, it is true. I've met individuals with all sorts of skin colors.

or whatever your ideological commitment is keeps you from seeing that black folks have substantially less wealth than white folks per capita
I don't have to have a problem seeing it to have no problem leaving it unexplained.

in the aggregate pick your indicator black folks aren't in a pretty economic situation and were disproportionately hit by the recession
Poor people were disproportionately hit by the recession. Rich black people, though there are few of them, were hit by bailouts, which is what caused the disproportionality.

meaning that indicator is going to jump even further out of whack in the future. Saying that that is a result of aggregate choices is socially irresponsible and reprehensible.
I have no responsibility to society, and society is not an entity capable of reprehensing me.

This isn't a choice between pizza and steak, it's an issue between white owners and black workers.
There are white workers and black owners too, and ownership comes from somewhere.

So if it's just how individual choices happen to aggregate what you're saying is that black people SUCK at making choices.
No, that's what you're saying because you add a premise I don't. You see, the syllogism here doesn't work without the premise of collectivism. I don't have to say anything about any mass of black people, because I don't say anything about any masses of any people except masses defined by a choice (which black isn't). I say things about individuals.

Like if I offer to give them 1000 or they can give me 50 dollars, then they will choose to give me 50 dollars.
Real choices aren't that obvious. Real choices in the matter consist of choosing career paths with varying average outcomes and varying deviations of outcomes and varying skillsets.

Also, no libertarian, dunno about conservative will claim that "all barriers are gone" unless they severely misunderstand the nature of the present government. It may not be an explicitly race defined barrier, but it's certainly a barrier to merit.

They do.
Some might.

The entire premise of the argument is that racial inequalities exist. What kind of barrier would disproportionately affect people of color if it's not an explicitly racial barrier
Any kind if it disproportionately affects poor people and inertia helps lower the proportion of white poor people.

If inertia is your primary argument then you need to change your ideological commitments.
I really don't. Inertia is, again, not a barrier..

Because if you're talking about inertia than the inequalities that existed from slavery through Jim Crow through the modern day where explicit economic preferences were crafted for whites, like the GI bill, like the Homestead Act, like redlining, etc. etc.
That explains why there isn't positive inertia for blacks. It does not however speak of barriers for blacks.

What it fails to explain is why people of color haven't made headway with.
They've advanced. It's just that whites have advanced too. Equality is not an end.

Like banks push predatory subprime mortgages on families of color that could qualify for prime rates.
Banks can't "Push" anybody into anything.

Like job discrimination that persists to this day. Like housing discrimination,
Go on.

etc. But I'll give inertia the benefit of the doubt. To make your society fair, you need to put everybody back at home.
No. I don't. Because it's not a zero sum game. Justice ("Fairness" is a vague term) consists of the consequences of your actions accruing to you. It says nothing about taking away from people who happen to be lucky. They aren't harming people by being lucky.

All that crap that was gotten unfairly isn't deserved and people should be forced to give it up.
This is the opposite of pareto optimality. No one benefits from this. Everyone affected at all loses.

Else in your society white folks wake up on third while black folks just stepped into the batter's box. Does that sound like a good society or one worth fighting for?
Life is not baseball. In baseball, people start in difficult places (the batters box) because it's ENTERTAINING to see them get out. In life, you should not expect to be helped out of such things, because there are costs to doing so, costs that it is not just for anyone to be forced to pay for you, but it's perfectly okay for people to help you out of them if they want to. It doesn't hurt anybody except themselves.



Actually inheritance doesn't wash out over time, because black folks were barred from owning.
That doesn't follow. They aren't barred from owning now, and old money decays to the average if merit doesn't come along to renew it-- it gets spent. Granted, there would be more boons now for black people had former black people not been barred from owning, but, though those dead black people's rights were violated, the boons are not an entitlement. And the same treatment accrues to the lower numbers of white people in analogous situation. Your trust get busted, whitey? If you're still alive, sue away in a just court. But your children have no standing. The fact that gifts didn't happen isn't a harm to your rights, though it certainly harmed the rights of the giver at the time.

The wealth disparities have been steadily growing
Have black people gotten poorer? I think not.

If you own, you gain wealth by sitting on your bum.
That's actually how you spend it.

If you work you probably aren't even gaining wealth.
What are those wages anyway?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2010 6:47:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/1/2010 9:51:21 PM, governments_kill wrote:
I think this is a really interesting article:

http://www.timwise.org...

In it the author argues that conservative ideology is at its core racist. To distill the argument to limit complaints about the length of the article, it essentially boils down to looking at the existence of social inequalities coupled to the conservative argument that all barriers are gone and all achievements are about merit. If everything is accomplished by merit than to explain social inequalities one needs to resort to explanations that rely on biological or cultural inferiority, which are the definition of racism.

Discuss.

i don't think any (sane) libertarian would claim that the system as it is now is based on merit, and thus that inequalities that exist are due to the inherent inferiority of one group to another. there are plenty of laws that unfairly favor one group over another. we're still dealing with a legacy of decades of institutional racism. and of course garden variety prejudice still exists.

it seems to me that its only racist to assume that our current system is actually a meritocracy...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 2:09:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 6:46:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't say he need to define culture in terms of creating disparate outcomes, I said he needed to DEFINE CULTURE, no further qualifiers. To argue that to use culture as an explanation is racist requires that culture MEAN SOMETHING and that that something imply racism here.

We keep talking past each other. Why define culture when it doesn't mean anything for your argument. Some people choose to claim that cultural inferiority is the basis for inequality. I guess you're aware of how biology is used to explain racial inequalities so you don't need that explained to you but here's a good example of a liberal explanation for racial inequality that uses a racist narrative. Black folks were victimized by Jim Crow and developed a victim mentality that prevents them from achieving success. The typical conservative one is something about how black families being female dominant doesn't teach black males to succeed.

Radicals don't use culture as an explanation. We look at systemic barriers. Since we're doing that we look at examples of how cultural examples tend to be racist. There are your examples if you haven't heard them in arguments before which I find hard to believe.

I've never met a group called black people or a group called white people, it is true. I've met individuals with all sorts of skin colors.

Really, I actually have to break down the myth of a color blind society? Yes you've met individuals and never "met" a group. But our brains work in schemas and process similar inputs into groups. So while you may not have "met" a group that doesn't mean you don't have ideas about a group. Now maybe those ideas might not be conscious, but that's even worse than having conscious ideas about race, because conscious ideas about race can actually be worked on. The subconscious ones are the ones that remain unchallenged. The woman who clutches her purse when she sees a younger black male, or the female who quickly scans a room for fear of rape when white women are far more likely to be raped by someone they know then by a stranger of color.

Seeing and recognizing race isn't racist, it's how you act on that information and knowledge that determines whether one's behavior is racist.

in the aggregate pick your indicator black folks aren't in a pretty economic situation and were disproportionately hit by the recession
Poor people were disproportionately hit by the recession. Rich black people, though there are few of them, were hit by bailouts, which is what caused the disproportionality.

See this is interesting and I'm going to save the rest for a different post. Here you're acknowledging groups. You're acknowledging that there are poor folks and rich folks. Then you acknowledge that there are black folks and white folks. I never claimed that people make decisions as a group. I claimed that decisions are made that affect people as groups. There's a substantial difference between the two. Yes poor people were disproportionately hit by the recession. However, that data has been broken down even further and it was jobs in which people of color have been historically and contemporaneously ghettoized into that were disproportionately hit predominately in the service sector. You can look at NYC where the unemployment rate for Black folks was more than twice the rate of white folks. NOW EXPLAIN THAT. And if you say luck I'm going to reach through your computer and poke out your eyes. And there's an obvious need to explain that, because your wonderful libertarian economics use this term, "all things remaining equal." Well how is black unemployment double white unemployment evidence of all things remaining equal. And if you have no concern then I don't want to hear the word justice come out of a libertarian's mouth ever again, because it's clear whose justice you're working for.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 2:35:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I see a lot of black people sitting together in the cafeteria. I see a lot of asians sitting together in the cafeteria. It isn't because I said "you can't sit with me because of your skin".
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 2:43:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/2/2010 6:46:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

This isn't a choice between pizza and steak, it's an issue between white owners and black workers.
There are white workers and black owners too, and ownership comes from somewhere.
Yes there are white workers. I'm one of them. But black owners. I can count them on two hands. Bust out Forbes it's like a Nazi rally (not saying that they're Nazis or even that they would go to a Nazi rally or that they're the types of people only mean the skin color).

So if it's just how individual choices happen to aggregate what you're saying is that black people SUCK at making choices.
No, that's what you're saying because you add a premise I don't. You see, the syllogism here doesn't work without the premise of collectivism. I don't have to say anything about any mass of black people, because I don't say anything about any masses of any people except masses defined by a choice (which black isn't). I say things about individuals.

This is funny, I'm a collectivist. No I'm not claiming that choices are made. I'm claiming that there are structural barriers that prevent folks of color from making certain choices that have better economic outcomes than the ones they are directed into making.
Here are the claims that you explicitly make:
1) Results are a product of choice
2) Individuals make choices for themselves.
What you don't address is:
1) Masses of black folks underachieve both intragenerationally and intergenerationally relative to white folks.

This means that implicitly you're stating that black folks must choose badly. If you can offer an alternate explanation then fine you're off the hook, but because you don't want to explain you're stuck with the implicitly racist argument that you're making.


Like if I offer to give them 1000 or they can give me 50 dollars, then they will choose to give me 50 dollars.
Real choices aren't that obvious. Real choices in the matter consist of choosing career paths with varying average outcomes and varying deviations of outcomes and varying skillsets.
Obviously it was an oversimplification. Do real choices consist in getting college tracked vs. remedial, because that's a decision that teachers make for people which is highly racially correlative, and I'll give you a hint it's not what conservatives like to call Affirmative Action.

The entire premise of the argument is that racial inequalities exist. What kind of barrier would disproportionately affect people of color if it's not an explicitly racial barrier
Any kind if it disproportionately affects poor people and inertia helps lower the proportion of white poor people.

Do you understand inertia? If you're arguing inertia, then it wouldn't help pull ANY white folks OUT of poverty. Those are both actions. Get your arguments straight. The only thing that could lower proportions and still hold inertia as a good explanation is if death rates disproportionately hit poor white folks relative to rich white folks or death disproportionately hit rich black folks relative to poor black folks. Or if poor white folks were hit disproportionately to poor black folks. The death rates don't play out that way instead poor folks are always hit disproportionately to rich folks and black folks are hit disproportionately to white folks. In fact I'd like to see the cross-sectional study that compares rates of poor white folks to rich black folks. I bet the poor whites have a lower rate

Like banks push predatory subprime mortgages on families of color that could qualify for prime rates.
Banks can't "Push" anybody into anything.

Yes they can. Banks can offer you a mortgage and you can choose not to take it. But if you want a house and they will only offer you a subprime rate how is that not pushing something?

That explains why there isn't positive inertia for blacks. It does not however speak of barriers for blacks.

Like job discrimination that persists to this day. Like housing discrimination,
Go on.

Those were the barriers that you wanted...

etc. But I'll give inertia the benefit of the doubt. To make your society fair, you need to put everybody back at home.
No. I don't. Because it's not a zero sum game. Justice ("Fairness" is a vague term) consists of the consequences of your actions accruing to you. It says nothing about taking away from people who happen to be lucky. They aren't harming people by being lucky.

So let me get this straight. Inheritance is just? And those racial inheritances that were done over multiple generations when not an ounce has been invested into black or latino communities and then when black and latino young people are competing against the mountain of wealth that white families have accrued over generations and get to marshall those resources both in terms of personal development as well as competition within the world of business you can seriously say that people aren't harmed by other's luck? Do you have a clue that in the real world people are dealing with limited resources. This isn't about getting by. There are limited seats in college. Limited ownership shares whatever. So when inheritance gives you a leg up on the competition than it absolutely harms people that aren't the beneficiaries of it.

This is the opposite of pareto optimality. No one benefits from this. Everyone affected at all loses.

See above, more people than you realize are affected by this and they benefit in terms of level playing field.

Else in your society white folks wake up on third while black folks just stepped into the batter's box. Does that sound like a good society or one worth fighting for?
Life is not baseball. In baseball, people start in difficult places (the batters box) because it's ENTERTAINING to see them get out. In life, you should not expect to be helped out of such things, because there are costs to doing so, costs that it is not just for anyone to be forced to pay for you, but it's perfectly okay for people to help you out of them if they want to. It doesn't hurt anybody except themselves.

That metaphor wasn't so much about moving everyone else up to third as it was about telling the white folks to get back into the batter's box... But alright?

That doesn't follow. They aren't barred from owning now, and old money decays to the average if merit doesn't come along to renew it-- it gets spent. Granted, there would be more boons now for black people had former black people not been barred from owning, but, though those dead black people's rights were violated, the boons are not an entitlement. And the same treatment accrues to the lower numbers of white people in analogous situation. Your trust get busted, whitey? If you're still alive, sue away in a just court. But your children have no standing. The fact that gifts didn't happen isn't a harm to your rights, though it certainly harmed the rights of the giver at the time.

Dear god, you really are lying to yourself. Assets that are owned can grow in value without the addition of productive labor. There are actual people in the world who haven't worked a day in their life. That's a result of unjust inheritance not productive labor. Not all wealthy people are doctors, there are plenty that own businesses that couldn't explain the industry if they tried, or just own land and rent it out.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 1:45:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/3/2010 2:09:41 PM, governments_kill wrote:
At 12/2/2010 6:46:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't say he need to define culture in terms of creating disparate outcomes, I said he needed to DEFINE CULTURE, no further qualifiers. To argue that to use culture as an explanation is racist requires that culture MEAN SOMETHING and that that something imply racism here.


We keep talking past each other. Why define culture when it doesn't mean anything for your argument.
His argument is that a cultural argument is racist. Clearly this has no meaning at all unless culture has a meaning.

Black folks were victimized by Jim Crow and developed a victim mentality that prevents them from achieving success. The typical conservative one is something about how black families being female dominant doesn't teach black males to succeed.
Add an on average to those statements and poof, no more collectivism, no need to judge individuals based on their race. No need to make race a deterministic factor. This just happened to happen frequently and that is all. Or perhaps it didn't. Interviewing a bunch of them should tell you that. Redefining racism around it won't tell you anything about it though.


Radicals don't use culture as an explanation. We look at systemic barriers
Define culture in a way that excludes systemic barriers, defining those too.

I've never met a group called black people or a group called white people, it is true. I've met individuals with all sorts of skin colors.

Really, I actually have to break down the myth of a color blind society?
I didn't say anything about society.

Yes you've met individuals and never "met" a group. But our brains work in schemas and process similar inputs into groups.
Through volitional action-- and, importantly, into groups deemed conceptually relevant. Perhaps you deem race relevant enough to raise conceptually to the status of human identity, but "our brains" do not.

So while you may not have "met" a group that doesn't mean you don't have ideas about a group. Now maybe those ideas might not be conscious
If it's not conscious, it's not an idea. It's an instinct.


Seeing and recognizing race isn't racist, it's how you act on that information and knowledge that determines whether one's behavior is racist.
I see: "There is a person. His skin happens to be dark."
Actually, I rarely see that, I don't really pay attention to people much unless my attention is called to them, other than out of the corner of my eye at which point I can't even see what color they are. But if my attention is called, my actions resulting from that are nonexistent, and the train of thought ends there, it doesn't seem to be important information.


in the aggregate pick your indicator black folks aren't in a pretty economic situation and were disproportionately hit by the recession
Poor people were disproportionately hit by the recession. Rich black people, though there are few of them, were hit by bailouts, which is what caused the disproportionality.


See this is interesting and I'm going to save the rest for a different post. Here you're acknowledging groups. You're acknowledging that there are poor folks and rich folks. Then you acknowledge that there are black folks and white folks.
Statistically. Not conceptually. (For black and white. Rich and poor are indeed relevant things).

I never claimed that people make decisions as a group. I claimed that decisions are made that affect people as groups.
As poor and rich, perhaps.

There's a substantial difference between the two. Yes poor people were disproportionately hit by the recession. However, that data has been broken down even further and it was jobs in which people of color have been historically and contemporaneously ghettoized
Define ghettoized, define the means

into that were disproportionately hit predominately in the service sector.
The service sector is dominant in the US economy, it's not merely a black phenomenon, or even a poor one. Heck, manufacturing scales up a lot less than that.

You can look at NYC where the unemployment rate for Black folks was more than twice the rate of white folks. NOW EXPLAIN THAT.
That's just it. I have no reason to explain it.

And there's an obvious need to explain that, because your wonderful libertarian economics use this term, "all things remaining equal." Well how is black unemployment double white unemployment evidence of all things remaining equal.
You have no idea what the other things equal assumption is do you? It has nothing to do with social equality, it's a statement that you will not necessarily observe numbers that correlate with certain effects in the muddle of uncontrolled variables that the attempt to treat economics as "science" gets you.

And if you have no concern then I don't want to hear the word justice come out of a libertarian's mouth ever again
Who is receiving the positively harmful consequences of someone else's actions, or not receiving the beneficial ones of their own, here? Justice has nothing to do with anything mentioned here as far as I can see. Perhaps you mean social justice, which is a perversion of the term, having a meaning incompatible with that of the word justice without a qualifier.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 1:47:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
in other words, paying attention to the other things equal assumption not only doesn't demand I explain such statistical artifacts, it tells me why I DON'T have to, and tells me why it's IMPOSSIBLE to explain everything. There are insane amounts of chaotically uncontrolled variables. Including random chance, and things that happen to simulate it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 6:44:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think the better question would be, given the multitude of histories behind each race and culture, how could anyone expect them not to end up different?
governments_kill
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 8:11:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 1:45:43 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And there's an obvious need to explain that, because your wonderful libertarian economics use this term, "all things remaining equal." Well how is black unemployment double white unemployment evidence of all things remaining equal.
You have no idea what the other things equal assumption is do you? It has nothing to do with social equality, it's a statement that you will not necessarily observe numbers that correlate with certain effects in the muddle of uncontrolled variables that the attempt to treat economics as "science" gets you.

Actually I do. I've taken plenty of economics courses, and it applies. When looking at the effects of economic policies economists look in the aggregate. Other things remaining equal... certain policies will have a beneficial effect. Sound familiar? But that's my point. Other things aren't equal and policies could have an "economically" beneficial effect and a social cost that doesn't come close to benefiting various groups. Slavery is actually a really good example and so on and so forth. It also explains how your comment that black folks haven't gotten poorer on average doesn't answer my charge.

That and I'm sick of writing the same things. I told you last time that I don't believe in race as a biological or cultural phenomenon. What it is however, is a socially relevant fact. Socially relevant because explicit and implicit racial bias exists, which leads to detrimental impacts to people of color. I am still able to recognize that race is a socially constructed phenomenon and still understand that it has really existing social impacts.

And if you have no concern then I don't want to hear the word justice come out of a libertarian's mouth ever again
Who is receiving the positively harmful consequences of someone else's actions, or not receiving the beneficial ones of their own, here? Justice has nothing to do with anything mentioned here as far as I can see. Perhaps you mean social justice, which is a perversion of the term, having a meaning incompatible with that of the word justice without a qualifier.

If you're going to answer what I said about a lack of level playing fields and how that is not people getting their just desert then I'll answer a new question but I'm not typing it out again.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2010 10:31:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/4/2010 8:11:42 AM, governments_kill wrote:
At 12/4/2010 1:45:43 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And there's an obvious need to explain that, because your wonderful libertarian economics use this term, "all things remaining equal." Well how is black unemployment double white unemployment evidence of all things remaining equal.
You have no idea what the other things equal assumption is do you? It has nothing to do with social equality, it's a statement that you will not necessarily observe numbers that correlate with certain effects in the muddle of uncontrolled variables that the attempt to treat economics as "science" gets you.

Actually I do. I've taken plenty of economics courses, and it applies. When looking at the effects of economic policies economists look in the aggregate. Other things remaining equal
No. they don't. Looking in the aggregate does very little to alter this.

l... certain policies will have a beneficial effect. Sound familiar?
Yes, it's a familiar delusion.

. Slavery is actually a really good example and so on and so forth.
Slavery is not beneficial in economic terms. It's not even efficient for the slaveowner unless you're selling the slave as a service worker in an already illegal industry that therefore artificially inflates the value of the services. Paying wages is cheaper than paying for security.

It also explains how your comment that black folks haven't gotten poorer on average doesn't answer my charge.

That and I'm sick of writing the same things. I told you last time that I don't believe in race as a biological or cultural phenomenon. What it is however, is a socially relevant fact.
Until I see definitions, I see no difference between cultural phenomenon and socially relevant fact.

Socially relevant because explicit and implicit racial bias exists
And that is not a cultural phenomenon, albeit the culture of a different race? It is not a collective judgment about those-who-are-not-racially-minority?




And if you have no concern then I don't want to hear the word justice come out of a libertarian's mouth ever again
Who is receiving the positively harmful consequences of someone else's actions, or not receiving the beneficial ones of their own, here? Justice has nothing to do with anything mentioned here as far as I can see. Perhaps you mean social justice, which is a perversion of the term, having a meaning incompatible with that of the word justice without a qualifier.

If you're going to answer what I said about a lack of level playing fields
I already did. Level playing fields exist when you play for the purpose of ENTERTAINMENT. They have little to do with justice out of context.

and how that is not people getting their just desert
You did not say an adequate how.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.