U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Could someone provide examples of Paul's bigotry outside of his newsletters? Not that I'm saying he isn't homophic or racist, just whether he has acted on those biases.

These are much more nuanced than the newsletters, but just using the wikipedia article on his political positions there's a few decent (though, again, nuanced) examples:
* Opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act
* Opposes Affirmative Action

Those are all imperfect, and the wikipedia page gives his reasoning for his positions, but those are certainly positions that would have a negative impact on minorities. As well, his own website* gives his own views on immigration being to end the "welfare state" (disproportionately affecting minorities), no longer granting citizenship to those born on US soil (which strikes me as a "keep America white" position), and opposing any kind of amnesty or leniency with the current illegal immigrants. I haven't done any serious looking for detailed news articles or analyses of his voting to get more information, but there is at least some evidence of such between just wikipedia and his own website. Whether you see it as sufficient examples or merely fully in line with his stated beliefs is something that can be more left up to the reader, but I think that, at the very least, it's definitely fair to say they could plausibly be motivated through racism.

* Ugh. I feel dirty every time I visit a campaign website. Even for people I want to vote for. And especially for people I don't want to vote for.

The Reaper wrote:So, Gary Johnson is OFFICIALLY going for the Libertarian Party nomination now. Signed the paperwork this morning on live internet feed from the capitol of NM. At least it's no longer (however obvious) speculation.

edit: link! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... omination/

Somewhat off topic, but I always hate that third parties always put nearly all of their effort into winning the presidency. It's not going to happen the way things are. It just won't- the republicans and democrats have too much going in their favor with the way the system is right now. If they want to have some actual change, they should start by building up networks and logistics in local government areas- the green party could conceivably do quite well in places like Vermont or San Francisco, for instance, and I'm sure there are parts of Texas or the mid-west that the libertarian party could do well in. After they've started to establish themselves in certain places, they'll be able to grow from there and make inroads with the federal government- imagine if the senate had even half a dozen third party or independent members!

None of that is to say they should just give up on the executive- at the very least, it's a great way to bring attention to their causes- but I wish they'd expend more of that energy on building up local strength, instead of being content to get 1% of the vote every four years and wonder why they never get anywhere. I also realize it's still a very difficult path, but to me it seems to be a path that has a far higher probability of payoff.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

A policy that harms or helps one group more than another isn't necessarily a sign of racism. Especially when it's consistent with the overall philosophy, in this case the vague definition of Libertarianism, unless that philosophy is racist. Free Brownies is you can explain how Libertarianism is inherently racism.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:23 pm UTC

That's why I specifically ended that with:
Ghostbear wrote:Whether you see it as sufficient examples [of racism] or merely fully in line with his stated beliefs is something that can be more left up to the reader, but I think that, at the very least, it's definitely fair to say they could plausibly be motivated through racism.

I know they aren't perfect examples, and I admitted as such, but I do feel it's definitely fair to say that it's plausible that they are racist. I do feel it is important, as well, to note that many of his policies would disproportionately damage minorities. If a non-racist enacts policies whose effects are effectively racist, is it really any better for those minorities?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Whether you see it as sufficient examples [of racism] or merely fully in line with his stated beliefs is something that can be more left up to the reader, but I think that, at the very least, it's definitely fair to say they could plausibly be motivated through racism.
I can confidently say that frozen yogurt could plausibly have been motivated through racism. It really doesn't mean anything. It contributes nothing but vague, baseless slander against the character of that delicious dairy dessert.

When I say, for instance, that Obama's policies could plausibly be motivated by Islam (the super secret kind), what I'm really saying is "I have absolutely no evidence to support my conclusion, but I'd really like to imply it anyway, even though there's a perfectly good, non-slanderous explanation that I will avoid mentioning in hopes that you will forget about it and join me in my ridiculous, unsupported belief."

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:05 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:I love this bullshit about Paul having any considerable impact on ceasing the war on drugs. As if he could simply vote for all of Congress and get the initiative, wholly rejected by the Republican party and at least a third of Democrats, any traction.
Power of Pardon.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Power of Pardon.
Power of enforcement, also. Remember when Obama sent the DEA in after some dudes growing medicinal marijuana in California? He didn't have to do that. When the cops work for you, you have a lot of control over law enforcement, and in terms of drug cases, federal law enforcement is a pretty big piece of that pie.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:14 pm UTC

Impractical as hell, and it doesn't even address the need to establish sponsored, regulated competitors to drive cartels and street traders out of business. You will need Congressional action for a non- halfassed solution.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:16 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I can confidently say that frozen yogurt could plausibly have been motivated through racism. It really doesn't mean anything. It contributes nothing but vague, baseless slander against the character of that delicious dairy dessert.

When I say, for instance, that Obama's policies could plausibly be motivated by Islam (the super secret kind), what I'm really saying is "I have absolutely no evidence to support my conclusion, but I'd really like to imply it anyway, even though there's a perfectly good, non-slanderous explanation that I will avoid mentioning in hopes that you will forget about it and join me in my ridiculous, unsupported belief."

Those are horrible counter examples. Both are instances where there is zero actual evidence available that could lead to someone saying "Hey, frozen yogurt might be racist", or "Hey, Obama might be a muslim". My example gave direct, actual evidence (that I was kind enough to place in a list with links) that could plausibly lead to someone saying "Hey, maybe R. Paul is racist"? Especially when you take that evidence and combine it with the newsletters. How are they at all equivalent?

I find your assertion that I had "absolutely no evidence to support my conclusion" very rude, seeing as how I very directly gave examples, with reasoning, for evidence. I even went so far as to admit that they aren't perfect examples, and left it at plausible instead of proven. If you want to say that the evidence is insufficient to reach the conclusion drawn of plausibility, fine, but don't insult my post by saying I offered no evidence.

nitePhyyre wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I love this bullshit about Paul having any considerable impact on ceasing the war on drugs. As if he could simply vote for all of Congress and get the initiative, wholly rejected by the Republican party and at least a third of Democrats, any traction.
Power of Pardon.

I must admit I have not considered that myself, but it is my understanding that the president can only pardon people convicted of federal crimes. I believe many drug laws are enforced on a state or local level, so the power to grant clemency would not be sufficient to end the war on drugs.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby folkhero » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:28 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Impractical as hell, and it doesn't even address the need to establish sponsored, regulated competitors to drive cartels and street traders out of business. You will need Congressional action for a non- halfassed solution.

So you prefer a zero-assed solution? Perfect is the enemy of good especially in politics where change in incremental. The current president can't even discus legalizing pot without getting a case of the giggles, so I'd say someone in the White House who seriously addresses the issue could do a lot to change the perception of the issue in the public and in congress, power of the pulpit and all.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Lucrece » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:42 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Impractical as hell, and it doesn't even address the need to establish sponsored, regulated competitors to drive cartels and street traders out of business. You will need Congressional action for a non- halfassed solution.

So you prefer a zero-assed solution? Perfect is the enemy of good especially in politics where change in incremental. The current president can't even discus legalizing pot without getting a case of the giggles, so I'd say someone in the White House who seriously addresses the issue could do a lot to change the perception of the issue in the public and in congress, power of the pulpit and all.


I'd like to see Paul in pulpit, knowing he has the chance to achieve and maintain power, and then we'll talk. He said marriage equality should be left to the state, but was open to a constitutional amendment should SCOTUS legalize it countrywide later on.

Paul joined the Republican party, a party that as of late clashes mightily against his espoused views, and you pretend to tell me that the man will be this revolutionary? Obama, too, was roaring about single payer healthcare and full scale withdrawal from wars and political isolationalism when the primaries came -- and then being an actual contender became a reality followed with a good shot at reelection. Suddenly he was "moderate". So will Paul once he gets to office and mulls the chance at reelection.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:22 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Obama, too, was roaring about single payer healthcare and full scale withdrawal from wars and political isolationalism when the primaries came -- and then being an actual contender became a reality followed with a good shot at reelection. Suddenly he was "moderate". So will Paul once he gets to office and mulls the chance at reelection.

To play the—I guess it’s not really “devil’s advocate” if I don’t have a position either way—let’s say to argue for the sake of arguing, it’s possible that a hypothetical President Paul could realize, “Hey, I’m an old man, I don’t want to wait around another 4 years, I might not even want to get re-elected when I’m that old, I’m going to stick to my guns and get as many of my policies enacted now as I am able.”
wee free kings

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:35 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Yeah I can't figure what's supposed to be represented by circle size or color.


It seems to me (which is half recollection because I think the graphic came from 538 in the spring or early summer) that the size was proportional to popular support and the color indicated the candidate's region of origin (blue = northeast, red = south, green = midwest, yellow = west).

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:11 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:no longer granting citizenship to those born on US soil (which strikes me as a "keep America white" position)
Really, no. Not only is immigration not always about race, birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens is a terrible plan. It encourages birth tourism and illegal immigration, neither of which are good things.

Ghostbear wrote:If they want to have some actual change, they should start by building up networks and logistics in local government areas- the green party could conceivably do quite well in places like Vermont or San Francisco, for instance, and I'm sure there are parts of Texas or the mid-west that the libertarian party could do well in. After they've started to establish themselves in certain places, they'll be able to grow from there and make inroads with the federal government- imagine if the senate had even half a dozen third party or independent members!
Um, this is a thing the parties do? The Libertarian party has 151 elected officials currently. (Texas is actually underrepresented.)

Ghostbear wrote:I believe many drug laws are enforced on a state or local level, so the power to grant clemency would not be sufficient to end the war on drugs.
While states have marijuana penalties, the primary obstacle to legalizing marijuana (and other drugs) is federal. Many states have decided to partly legalize or decriminalize drugs, but that has just resulted in increased federal prosecution. Get rid of the federal laws, and most everything else will go with it.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:21 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:Really, no. Not only is immigration not always about race, birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens is a terrible plan. It encourages birth tourism and illegal immigration, neither of which are good things.

A fair counter point, I'll admit I'm not particularly sure how I feel about birthright citizenship overall. Probably the weakest example I listed.

Vaniver wrote:Um, this is a thing the parties do? The Libertarian party has 151 elected officials currently. (Texas is actually underrepresented.)

I'll admit to being somewhat surprised here, but 151 officials doesn't sound like much on the scale of all elected officials in the US. This, for instance, indicates there were over 500,000 such offices in 1992. Even if that number has remained constant, that's 0.0302% of such offices. Many of them, (though certainly not all; I noticed some mayors in there) seem to be relatively small time positions, as well. Wikipedia seems to sum it up perfectly with their infopan on the right: 0 senate seats, 0 house seats, 0 governors, 0 state upper house seats, and 1 state lower house seat.

Using Gary Johnson as an example, who won reelection as governor with a fairly decent ~10% margin of victory, he could conceivably use his local popularity to possibly make a strong bid for a seat in the house or possibly even the senate within New Mexico. Were he not term limited, he probably could have done so for governor as well. Even if those were all implausible for him, he'd still likely have had a good shot at a seat on the NM state senate. That's the kind of building up of local strength I mean. A minor party will never win the presidency if they can't even get a single one of the 5,410 seats in the state senates! All their candidates who take shots at presidential runs tend to be more than capable of at least being popular enough for some of those seats, but they just want to skip all of that and go straight for the executive office. They're still accomplishing some good- bringing attention to their causes, and making sure their party is better known throughout the nation- but I feel they'd accomplish more in the long term with a stronger aim for party building on a larger scale.

Vaniver wrote:While states have marijuana penalties, the primary obstacle to legalizing marijuana (and other drugs) is federal. Many states have decided to partly legalize or decriminalize drugs, but that has just resulted in increased federal prosecution. Get rid of the federal laws, and most everything else will go with it.

That wasn't the point I was countering however. I was pointing out the limits of the executive's right to grant clemency on the ability to end the war on drugs under the assumption that they would not be able to get federal laws decriminalizing it through congress. A president pardoning everyone in the federal courts for drug related crimes would not be sufficient to end the war on drugs. Removing the federal laws criminalizing drug use, possession or sales would be a huge step in ending the war on drugs, no doubt about it. Pardons wouldn't solve much, or even all of it however. Pardons might actually make it horrendously chaotic, bringing a lot of uncertainty to the legal system.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:28 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Vaniver wrote:Really, no. Not only is immigration not always about race, birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens is a terrible plan. It encourages birth tourism and illegal immigration, neither of which are good things.

A fair counter point, I'll admit I'm not particularly sure how I feel about birthright citizenship overall. Probably the weakest example I listed.

Birthright citizenship is infinitely better than the alternative. Without it, you get people who are born in the country, have lived here their whole lives, but who are not citizens. That means an entire class of people who have never lived anywhere else, but cannot vote. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a gigantic vertical cliff between “equal representation” and “apartheid”.
wee free kings

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:46 am UTC

I'm more of the belief that birthright citizenship should apply IFF the mother was legally in the US when the child was born. Whether that's because she's a citizen, a resident alien, or here on a student visa. Just that if she's not here legally when the child was born, the state should not consider her to have been here at all.

This does bring up gray areas; what if the visa expired while she was admitted to the hospital, what about when the home country doesn't consider the baby a citizen (the baby is in Limbo), and so forth.

Of course, I also think it should be much easier to get the green card or student visas, and the path to citizenship should have a hell of a lot less paperwork...

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:16 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I find your assertion that I had "absolutely no evidence to support my conclusion" very rude, seeing as how I very directly gave examples, with reasoning, for evidence. I even went so far as to admit that they aren't perfect examples, and left it at plausible instead of proven. If you want to say that the evidence is insufficient to reach the conclusion drawn of plausibility, fine, but don't insult my post by saying I offered no evidence.

Sorry, I was rude. First I should have pointed out that none of your examples offer any evidence to suggest that Dr. Paul is racist. Opposing affirmative action certainly does not make one racist. Nor does fighting for business owner's rights, which was Paul's contention with the Civil Rights Act. Paul's consistent record of voting libertarian for the last 30 years does not in any way suggest that he is prejudiced.

And yes, saying "Well, I don't have any proof that he's racist, but he did vote against affirmative action" is as intellectually dishonest as saying "Well, I don't have any proof that he's a muslim, but his middle name is Hussein." Your 'evidence' does not support your premise, and inferring that it does is bullshit and should be called out as such.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:59 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I'll admit to being somewhat surprised here, but 151 officials doesn't sound like much on the scale of all elected officials in the US.
It's really not much, and the LP is the largest third party when it comes to electoral success. The voting system in the US incentivizes two parties very heavily.

Qaanol wrote:Birthright citizenship is infinitely better than the alternative. Without it, you get people who are born in the country, have lived here their whole lives, but who are not citizens. That means an entire class of people who have never lived anywhere else, but cannot vote. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a gigantic vertical cliff between “equal representation” and “apartheid”.
Presumably, they could inherit their parent's citizenship, as the children of American citizens born abroad are still American citizens, or they could go through the naturalization process and obtain citizenship.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:43 pm UTC

Honestly, though, if we're factoring in presidential efficacy, then citizenship shouldn't even be a question. While the President does directly control some aspects of immigration by setting policy for the Border Patrol, INS, and FBI, he would not be able to unilaterally change citizenship requirements. I believe that would require amending the Constitution, but I suppose there is precedent for granting citizenship by law. So while it may be possible to do something with Congress's help, the President alone doesn't have the kind of power over citizenship that he does over, say, drug policy.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:46 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:Presumably, they could inherit their parent's citizenship, as the children of American citizens born abroad are still American citizens, or they could go through the naturalization process and obtain citizenship.

Attempting to carve out a ledge halfway down, and mentioning that there are one or two narrow ladders to climb, serves only to demonstrate that you are in favor of going off the cliff.
wee free kings

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:09 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Qaanol wrote:Birthright citizenship is infinitely better than the alternative. Without it, you get people who are born in the country, have lived here their whole lives, but who are not citizens. That means an entire class of people who have never lived anywhere else, but cannot vote. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s a gigantic vertical cliff between “equal representation” and “apartheid”.
Presumably, they could inherit their parent's citizenship, as the children of American citizens born abroad are still American citizens, or they could go through the naturalization process and obtain citizenship.

The talk of birthright citizenship made me curious, so I looked and it seems that, outside of the Americas, nobody really practices birthright citizenship. While "nobody else is doing it" isn't a good reason to stop doing something, it could, perhaps, make it worth looking at. It seems that, within the developed world, many countries go with a variant of CorruptUser's idea; granting birthright citizenship with requirements for at least one parent being a legal resident for some period of time. Though most countries also don't have a significant history of immigration, while the various American nations, by contrast, are almost entirely populated by immigrants or the descendants thereof.

I'm going to stick with my "not sure how I feel overall" stance. I dislike taking a strong opinion on something that I haven't dedicated enough time to thinking over.

Heisenberg wrote:Sorry, I was rude. First I should have pointed out that none of your examples offer any evidence to suggest that Dr. Paul is racist. Opposing affirmative action certainly does not make one racist. Nor does fighting for business owner's rights, which was Paul's contention with the Civil Rights Act. Paul's consistent record of voting libertarian for the last 30 years does not in any way suggest that he is prejudiced.

And yes, saying "Well, I don't have any proof that he's racist, but he did vote against affirmative action" is as intellectually dishonest as saying "Well, I don't have any proof that he's a muslim, but his middle name is Hussein." Your 'evidence' does not support your premise, and inferring that it does is bullshit and should be called out as such.

No, your counter example is completely incomparable. The vast majority of people don't choose their names. They don't indicate much of anything about a person's personality, thought process or viewpoints. Legislative records and stated political positions are active actions, and do reveal something about someone. My evidence was answering a specific question, quoted:
CorruptUser wrote:Could someone provide examples of Paul's bigotry outside of his newsletters? Not that I'm saying he isn't homophic or racist, just whether he has acted on those biases.

If you take his newsletters as your starting point, and ask "Has he ever acted on these beliefs?", then you look, and find out. I did a short search between wikipedia and his website, and quickly found the examples I used. Taken in aggregate, I felt they painted a sufficient picture to say "he possibly has". I never have implied that they are perfect examples, providing 100% proof. I even said as such, multiple times:
Ghostbear wrote:These are much more nuanced than the newsletters, but just using the wikipedia article on his political positions there's a few decent (though, again, nuanced) examples:

Ghostbear wrote:Those are all imperfect, and the wikipedia page gives his reasoning for his positions, but those are certainly positions that would have a negative impact on minorities.

Ghostbear wrote:Whether you see it as sufficient examples [of racism] or merely fully in line with his stated beliefs is something that can be more left up to the reader, but I think that, at the very least, it's definitely fair to say they could plausibly be motivated through racism.

Emphasis added intentionally. Why you seem so intent on implying that I said these are perfectly conclusive of racism is beyond me.

As comparison to providing evidence, Hussein is merely a name of Arabic origins. Stating that someone with the middle name of "Hussein" is a muslim is an even larger leap of faith than assuming that someone with the name "Christopher" is a christian. There's no evidence there, not nuanced evidence, not "that's a bit of a stretch" evidence, not even poor evidence; there's nothing. So, no, you're still being insulting by stating comparability between my statement ("Here's some imperfect evidence, you could potentially use it to draw the conclusion that he has acted on racist beliefs expressed in his newsletters") and your example ("Look! His un-chosen middle name proves his a muslim, because there was a famous Iraqi we killed with it as part of their name too!"). It's entirely disingenuous.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:32 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Why you seem so intent on implying that I said these are perfectly conclusive of racism is beyond me.
I've never said that. I'm saying that researching the topic, finding there isn't any concrete evidence to support an idea, and then creating a list of inconclusive but misleading evidence and saying "he possibly has" is misleading. I don't know if that was your intention, but regardless, it implies that you found some sort of supporting evidence when you clearly did not.

You provided evidence which was irrelevant to the subject matter, making it not evidence at all.
Ghostbear wrote:I felt they painted a sufficient picture to say "he possibly has". I never have implied that they are perfect examples, providing 100% proof.
You see, if I was asked "Has Ghostbear wathed over 100 hours of midget porn?" an appropriate response would be "I have no idea" or "I have no reason to suspect that." An inappropriate response would be "Well, based on my research, he seems to use the words 'tiny' and 'fuck' a lot, so I'd say he possibly has :wink: ." See, by offering irrelevant 'evidence' and answering in the vague affirmative, I'm implying strongly that you love midget porn. That's what people do when they would like to impugn someone's reputation but don't have any proof.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:25 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I've never said that. I'm saying that researching the topic, finding there isn't any concrete evidence to support an idea, and then creating a list of inconclusive but misleading evidence and saying "he possibly has" is misleading. I don't know if that was your intention, but regardless, it implies that you found some sort of supporting evidence when you clearly did not.

You provided evidence which was irrelevant to the subject matter, making it not evidence at all.

I believe I see where our fundamental disagreement is- you seem to be approaching the question in isolation ("Is Paul racist?"), where I was trying to answer it in conjunction with other events ("Has Paul ever acted on the racism expressed in his newsletters?"). Those are similar questions, but they are different and will have different needs to be answered. If you're thinking of the first question, I'd say it's going a bit too far to call the examples given "inconclusive [and] misleading", but I would say it'd be fair to assess them as not being sufficient to draw a conclusion. The second question, however, is saying "OK, let's say we assume, for the moment, that his newsletters are an example of him being a racist- do we have any evidence of that affecting his policies?", to which you can find things that, if you're assuming someone is a racist to begin with, could easily be explained with that racism.

That Paul has justifications and explanations for his actions does not completely invalidate them. People do not do racist acts and justify it with "well, I am a racist after all"; they allow their racism to influence their actions or positions, and justify them afterwards. Many of the Jim Crow laws, for instance, were justified as protecting against electoral fraud or ensuring that the electorate was sufficiently educated. Those justifications, taken as-is, are laudable goals, but that does not mean the result was not racist, nor that it was not motivated by racism. I don't think it's difficult to see how wanting to end affirmative action or repeal the Civil Rights Act could possibly be motivated by racism. So I don't think that evidence is at all misleading or irrelevant in the least bit, merely imperfect. Justifications aren't a blanket cure-all, they should be taken into consideration, which I did, but they are not, in and of themselves, enough to prevent something being racist.

Heisenberg wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:I felt they painted a sufficient picture to say "he possibly has". I never have implied that they are perfect examples, providing 100% proof.
You see, if I was asked "Has Ghostbear wathed over 100 hours of midget porn?" an appropriate response would be "I have no idea" or "I have no reason to suspect that." An inappropriate response would be "Well, based on my research, he seems to use the words 'tiny' and 'fuck' a lot, so I'd say he possibly has :wink: ." See, by offering irrelevant 'evidence' and answering in the vague affirmative, I'm implying strongly that you love midget porn. That's what people do when they would like to impugn someone's reputation but don't have any proof.

Again, you're using incomparable examples. "Tiny" and "fuck" are words, that people frequently use without even considering that midget porn exists. They're not anywhere near evidence at all, having very little to no actual relation to midget porn. Repealing the Civil Rights Act, however, would very directly relate to racism, as the whole purpose of the law was to counteract and diminish the effects of racism. It's not difficult to imagine opposition to it being related to racism. It is difficult to imagine someone using words related to sex in combination with words indicating small size as leading to midget porn.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:04 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I believe I see where our fundamental disagreement is- you seem to be approaching the question in isolation ("Is Paul racist?"), where I was trying to answer it in conjunction with other events ("Has Paul ever acted on the racism expressed in his newsletters?"). Those are similar questions, but they are different and will have different needs to be answered.
The question you responded to asked if there were examples of Paul's racism outside of the newsletters. You responded with some examples of things that were not racism but could imply racism wink wink nudge nudge say no more. Now you're claiming that you were assuming Paul was a racist and showing things that could be consistent with Paul's imaginary racism. Not only is that totally irrelevant (I too, can show examples of X if first assuming X), it's not at all implied in the question you were responding to. So yeah, I still think it's dickish to assume someone is racist and then illustrate it by showing things that might be considered racist if one first assumed the subject was racist. Even more so if you choose to omit "assuming he's racist" from your post.
Ghostbear wrote:Again, you're using incomparable examples.
Bravo. You're really good at nitpicking the analogies I'm presenting, which is irrelevant because the examples are only there to show you that the presentation of such a shitty argument is itself disrespectful. When you use admittedly inconclusive and irrelevant 'evidence' to accuse someone of something rather disgusting, that's a pretty shitty thing to do. I hope we can agree on that point.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jave D » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:25 pm UTC

Ah, yes, the Ronpaul's imaginary racism. From his imaginary newsletters. Written by spooooky ghosts!

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:47 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:The question you responded to asked if there were examples of Paul's racism outside of the newsletters. You responded with some examples of things that were not racism but could imply racism wink wink nudge nudge say no more. Now you're claiming that you were assuming Paul was a racist and showing things that could be consistent with Paul's imaginary racism. Not only is that totally irrelevant (I too, can show examples of X if first assuming X), it's not at all implied in the question you were responding to. So yeah, I still think it's dickish to assume someone is racist and then illustrate it by showing things that might be considered racist if one first assumed the subject was racist. Even more so if you choose to omit "assuming he's racist" from your post.

Did you read the question I was responding to? Here it is, again:
CorruptUser wrote:Could someone provide examples of Paul's bigotry outside of his newsletters? Not that I'm saying he isn't homophic or racist, just whether he has acted on those biases.

Emphasis mine. It very clearly, by my reading, is asking if we have had any examples of the racism expressed in the newsletters affecting his policies or actions. I gave my imperfect examples, described them as such, and left it that. They're not irrelevant examples, because they make sense in context. This isn't just "assuming he's a racist, then he's a racist", it's "assuming he's a racist, can we see any evidence of that affecting his policies?". It's rather hugely different. Your interpretation, as you surmised, simplifies down to "x = x", which, while a rather nice discovery, isn't a particularly profound revelation. My interpretation says "here's some possible examples of how x might have lead to y", which is relevant.

Heisenberg wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:Again, you're using incomparable examples.
Bravo. You're really good at nitpicking the analogies I'm presenting, which is irrelevant because the examples are only there to show you that the presentation of such a shitty argument is itself disrespectful. When you use admittedly inconclusive and irrelevant 'evidence' to accuse someone of something rather disgusting, that's a pretty shitty thing to do. I hope we can agree on that point.

It's not nitpicking if your example is completely unalike; saying "x is not valid, because comparable to saying y" doesn't work if "y" is not comparable to "x". I can't disprove your disagreement by saying your argument is like saying something ridiculous , as it'd have no relation to your disagreement and wouldn't make any sense as a response, especially as it wouldn't be comparable to your post at all.

I am having a difficult time remaining civil with you, as you are very clearly not granting me the same courtesy. You can disagree with someone without taking it as carte blanche to be an insufferable dick about it. If you are so uninterested in civil discussion that you have to throw scare quotes around the word evidence while calling me dickish and intellectually dishonest, among other things, then I have no interest in continuing to try to discuss this with you. So, as a fellow poster, I'm asking you here, and I'll even say please,: stop being a jerk with your disagreement, please. I enjoy discussing things with people I disagree with, as it's rather boring if you stay within an insular "yes, I agree" culture, not to mention that doing so does little to allow you to find weaknesses or faults within your own viewpoints. I do not enjoy discussions that turn into a vitriol tossing competition.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:57 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Did you read the question I was responding to? Here it is, again:
CorruptUser wrote:Could someone provide examples of Paul's bigotry outside of his newsletters? Not that I'm saying he isn't homophic or racist, just whether he has acted on those biases.

Emphasis mine. It very clearly, by my reading, is asking if we have had any examples of the racism expressed in the newsletters affecting his policies or actions. I gave my imperfect examples, described them as such, and left it that. They're not irrelevant examples, because they make sense in context. This isn't just "assuming he's a racist, then he's a racist", it's "assuming he's a racist, can we see any evidence of that affecting his policies?". It's rather hugely different. Your interpretation, as you surmised, simplifies down to "x = x", which, while a rather nice discovery, isn't a particularly profound revelation. My interpretation says "here's some possible examples of how x might have lead to y", which is relevant.


Emphasis mine. The examples you gave are much more readily explained by Paul's staunchly Libertarian (usually) attitudes than by racism/bigotry.

If someone was militantly vegan, and had once referred to farmers as hicks, I wouldn't assume that any calls for the boycott of beef products to be done out of malice towards farmers.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:34 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The examples you gave are much more readily explained by Paul's staunchly Libertarian (usually) attitudes than by racism/bigotry.

If someone was militantly vegan, and had once referred to farmers as hicks, I wouldn't assume that any calls for the boycott of beef products to be done out of malice towards farmers.

Which is why I have admitted- at every instance- that the examples are not perfect. That you have to put the "(usually)" after libertarian is why it's plausible. He has some inconsistencies with such, as noted by omgryebread and netcrusher88 (here) which did not seem to be something you significantly disagreed with. Which doesn't mean that it's not a mostly good explanation, just that it's not the only plausible explanation.

There's nothing stopping your militant vegan from also developing a significant hatred for, or bias against, cattle farmers. Which could cause acts taken against said farmers being explained by both their veganism and their biases. Their bias against the farmers could intensify the goals or methodology of the hypothetical boycott. Likewise, Paul's potential racism, combined with his ideology could cause him to want to repeal the Civil Rights Act without creating replacement legislation that satisfies his politics while still protecting the rights of minorities. The interactions for these things are complex, and as I stated, most, perhaps all (though I'm hesitant to apply such a strong wording as to say "all" with much confidence) racists aren't going to justify their actions with "I'm racist", they're going to incorporate their racism in with their existing world-view and justify their racist actions within that. It's part of why racism is so hard to eliminate. As such, I don't feel "he's a libertarian" is sufficient to 100% disqualify those stances from the "possibly racist" pile.

As well, actions do not exist in a vacuum- you can dislike the Civil Rights Act for non-racist reasons, but repealing it (without any further acts to compensate) would still be an overall racist act, due to the purpose and impact of that law. Just like how many here are calling those that want to declare war on Iran war-mongers; everyone proposing doing such is going to have justification for wanting to fight them, and those reasons aren't going to be "because I like being at war"- they'll justify it with national security, regional stability, ending oppression for the inhabitants of Iran, or something else. And many of them will have a history of promoting national security, regional stability or wanting to end oppression abroad. They'd still be war-mongers.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:44 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:That you have to put the "(usually)" after libertarian is why it's plausible.


The "(usually)" was there because he opposes abortion, something that sets him apart from most other Libertarians. He's Ob/Gyn, so it's much more forgivable and understandable than just "Gawd told some guy to tell me so".

Ghostbear wrote:you can dislike the Civil Rights Act for non-racist reasons, but repealing it (without any further acts to compensate) would still be an overall racist act, due to the purpose and impact of that law.


Let's use your logic. "Any law which hurts or harms one group more than another group is racist". So you have a law that hurts one group more than another group. Therefore the law is racist. But repealing that law helps that group more than another group. Therefore, repealing a racist law is also racism. I take it you supported Apartheid, since its repeal would be massively racist?

Don't even try to argue that it isn't racist to hurt the group that is better off; Asian-Americans are a 'model minority', but you can't possibly argue that requiring only Asians to pay a special tax "to correct the inequality" isn't inherently racist.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:11 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:10 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The "(usually)" was there because he opposes abortion, something that sets him apart from most other Libertarians. He's Ob/Gyn, so it's much more forgivable and understandable, than just "Gawd told me so".

And it's still an inconsistency. Especially since he tried to pass a law defining life as beginning at conception- if he was 100% consistent, then he'd want that defined by the states instead of by the federal government.

CorruptUser wrote:Let's use your logic. "Any law which hurts or harms one group more than another group is racist". So you have a law that hurts one group more than another group. Therefore the law is racist. But repealing that law helps that group more than another group. Therefore, repealing a racist law is also racism. I take it you supported Apartheid, since its repeal would be massively racist?

Sorry, just because one group feels the effects of a law more than another group doesn't mean the law is racist. After all, a higher percentage of black people live in cities, so any law affecting cities affects black people more than white people, therefore laws affecting cities are inherently racist.

That's more than a bit of a stretch for defining my argument. Repealing the Civil Rights Act would wholly have a negative effect on one group (minorities). And it's not a "hey that's less convenient" negative effect, or diminishing their stranglehold on politics. It'd be removing a protection of their fundamental right to vote (which you may note, was specifically needed in order for them to be able to freely exercise said right), or to not be systematically discriminated against. That just isn't even remotely comparable to the negative effect it has non minorities. How are the non minorities even punished? Being prevented from freely discriminating against another group isn't a similar loss to losing your right to vote.

So you have to (1) note the groups effected, and to what extent, and (2) the size of the impact.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:19 am UTC

1) Minorities are not one group.
2) If you are going to claim there is a threshold of damage which determines whether or not a law is racist, well, I guess it's perfectly OK to pass 100,000 laws which don't harm black people enough to be racist.
3) the Ronpaul opposes Affirmative Action (which is from the 1964 CRA) because "it failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." I agree with that statement.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:24 am UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I believe that would require amending the Constitution, but I suppose there is precedent for granting citizenship by law. So while it may be possible to do something with Congress's help, the President alone doesn't have the kind of power over citizenship that he does over, say, drug policy.
So, the 14th amendment of the Constitution says (emphasis mine) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." If the bolded section is interpreted as "born to parents legally present in the US," you get a change in policy without a change in text. I do not think the president would be able to directly alter that interpretation, but could indirectly (probably with the judiciary's help, rather than Congress's).

Qaanol wrote:Attempting to carve out a ledge halfway down, and mentioning that there are one or two narrow ladders to climb, serves only to demonstrate that you are in favor of going off the cliff.
I believe it's better to have a handful of limbo babies than widespread birth tourism and illegal immigration. Things would probably be worse for each individual limbo baby, but there would be many fewer of them, and coming up with solutions case by case would be doable (as naturalization would remain an option, though eligibility might need to be widened a bit).

Ghostbear wrote:Stating that someone with the middle name of "Hussein" is a muslim is an even larger leap of faith than assuming that someone with the name "Christopher" is a christian. There's no evidence there, not nuanced evidence, not "that's a bit of a stretch" evidence, not even poor evidence; there's nothing.
Er, that's not how evidence works. P(English-speaking country|"Christopher")>P(English-speaking country), and P(Christian|English-speaking country)>P(Christian), so P(Christian|"Christopher")>P(Christian). The fault is only conditioning on "Christopher" and not any of the other details. With Obama, you quickly notice things like P(Muslim|Attends Christian Church)<P(Muslim).

In related news, the Paul campaign has a racism ad out. (I'm still fascinated by the intersection between being an OBGYN and a politician; Paul has a number of supporters that he personally delivered.)
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:13 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:Stating that someone with the middle name of "Hussein" is a muslim is an even larger leap of faith than assuming that someone with the name "Christopher" is a christian. There's no evidence there, not nuanced evidence, not "that's a bit of a stretch" evidence, not even poor evidence; there's nothing.
Er, that's not how evidence works. P(English-speaking country|"Christopher")>P(English-speaking country), and P(Christian|English-speaking country)>P(Christian), so P(Christian|"Christopher")>P(Christian). The fault is only conditioning on "Christopher" and not any of the other details. With Obama, you quickly notice things like P(Muslim|Attends Christian Church)<P(Muslim).

Heh, you actually completely missed the way I intended those two to compare, though honestly I only have myself to blame here, as I can't actually think of anyone else I've met with a particular interest in the etymologies of names. Nor did I mention that the comparison was related to such. That was the reasoning for the links I attached to the names, however, in case anyone was curious. I see why you interpreted it the way you did, and it's probably the safest interpretation from what I directly wrote- sorry about that. Anyway, the comparison I was going for there was based on Christopher being derived from the Greek for "bearing Christ". So the leaps of faith for each would be:

Christopher -> name from mostly christian dominated part of the world & means "bearing Christ" = they must be christian! Verus: Hussein -> name from mostly muslim dominated part of the world* = they must be muslim!

They both ridiculous claims, but the claim for Christopher is (slightly) less ridiculous than the one for Hussein.

* And also being the name of Mohammad's grandson, so not 100% free of religious connections itself. However, the root derivation is from "handsome"**.
** Completely irrelevant, but the similarity of the root name (Hasan) and handsome in pronunciation made me look up to see the etymology for handsome, thinking that perhaps this was a case of a word's form being relatively unchanged from the language that latin and arabic both have as a historic root of their own. I was wrong, unsurprisingly, the origin for handsome is... hand + some. How anticlimatic.

CorruptUser wrote:1) Minorities are not one group.

Correct. What is this in response to? I'm not trying to be facetious here- I don't know what this is meant to counter, and taken by itself I can't make much of it.

CorruptUser wrote:2) If you are going to claim there is a threshold of damage which determines whether or not a law is racist, well, I guess it's perfectly OK to pass 100,000 laws which don't harm black people enough to be racist.

All this counter-argument does is show that you can easily create loopholes whenever you define an arbitrary, discrete definition point for when something occurs. Racism isn't a simple "yes/no" form- like many things in life, it's on a scale, with no simple definition for "this is when it occurs". So, yes, if you define an specific point for legislation and say "anything past this is absolutely racist, anything before it is not", then you could do exactly that. Luckily, I didn't propose such a system.

CorruptUser wrote:3) the Ronpaul opposes Affirmative Action (which is from the 1964 CRA) because "it failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." I agree with that statement.

It is my understanding that affirmative action is meant to address the economic and educational disadvantageous suffered by minorities after centuries of discrimination. It hasn't achieved a color blind society over the course of less than 50 years because that wasn't its purpose- I doubt any of the people that originally implemented would have expected such a long term, huge societal goal, to be accomplished over such a relatively short time frame. You could, perhaps, see the ultimate goal of redressing those issues as being to create a color-blind society, but that isn't the stated nor primary purpose.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:59 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:1) Minorities are not one group.

Correct. What is this in response to? I'm not trying to be facetious here- I don't know what this is meant to counter, and taken by itself I can't make much of it.


Ghostbear wrote:That's more than a bit of a stretch for defining my argument. Repealing the Civil Rights Act would wholly have a negative effect on one group (minorities)



Ghostbear wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:2) If you are going to claim there is a threshold of damage which determines whether or not a law is racist, well, I guess it's perfectly OK to pass 100,000 laws which don't harm black people enough to be racist.

All this counter-argument does is show that you can easily create loopholes whenever you define an arbitrary, discrete definition point for when something occurs. Racism isn't a simple "yes/no" form- like many things in life, it's on a scale.


No, it's either racist or it isn't; the scale is merely how bad the racism is. It goes from 'this person looks odd' to 'damn these <group> for looking at my groups' <gender>!'.

Ghostbear wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:3) the Ronpaul opposes Affirmative Action (which is from the 1964 CRA) because "it failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society." I agree with that statement.

It is my understanding that affirmative action is meant to address the economic and educational disadvantageous suffered by minorities after centuries of discrimination.


No, it's meant to help the people that are here now. The people that suffered years ago are long dead, and nothing can be done for them. The people that are the descendants of those people, are also the descendants of the people that caused the abuse. It's kind of absurd to sue for damages for wrongful birth because your father raped your mother.

If it was meant only as recompense to the descendants of the people that suffered, well, the real lesson there is "make sure there are no descendants".

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:24 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:Correct. What is this in response to? I'm not trying to be facetious here- I don't know what this is meant to counter, and taken by itself I can't make much of it.

Ghostbear wrote:That's more than a bit of a stretch for defining my argument. Repealing the Civil Rights Act would wholly have a negative effect on one group (minorities)


Ah, OK. Would you have preferred I said one class of people? It doesn't change that minorities would be disproportionately negatively affected by repealing the Civil Rights Act.

CorruptUser wrote:No, it's either racist or it isn't; the scale is merely how bad the racism is.

I don't want to further derail everything with a definition of racism argument, so I think on this we'll just have to agree to disagree. Even still, I don't think there's much difference between what I said and what you responded with. There's going to be areas of "very badly racist" and "very definitely not racist" at either end, and then there's going to be an ambiguous zone in the center where defining if it is or is not racism is difficult (see: this discussion).

CorruptUser wrote:No, it's meant to help the people that are here now. The people that suffered years ago are long dead, and nothing can be done for them. The people that are here that are the descendants of those people, are also the descendants of the people that caused the abuse. It's kind of absurd to sue for damages for wrongful birth because your father raped your mother.

Yes, they're dead, but the current generation of minorities is primarily descendant from them. The centuries of discrimination would cause black neighborhoods to be poorer, or for their families to have less wealth to leave to their descendants to inherit, or that their local schools will be of lower quality. This is what it's addressing. It's meant to address them, because they lead to charts like this:
Spoiler:
Image

Affirmative action is meant to soften the disparity between races (and, also, genders) shown in graphics like that. Those inequalities didn't just prop up over night- they're there because of the centuries of discrimination. It was only about a century and a half ago that the vast majority of blacks were freed from slavery without any property or wealth to their names- this allowed them little means to help themselves or their children to advance, who in turn had the same issue, so on and so on, until the present. That is what affirmative action is addressing.

Or, if you wanted to read directly from what I linked to:
Wikipedia wrote:Affirmative action is intended to promote equal opportunity. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The justification for affirmative action is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[3] and to address existing discrimination.[4] The implementation of affirmative action, especially in the United States, is considered by its proponents to be justified by disparate impact.

Or, from the very beginning of the article:
Wikipedia wrote:Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.

Emphasis is mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santorum is surging in Iowa! Oh man, I so hope he can lead in a poll before this happens- it'll mean that at some point, every republican candidate besides Huntsman will have been considered a front runner for Iowa. :lol: I suppose this is only the second presidential primary season I've followed, but is there any precedent for such a volatile front-runnership before? The game of musical "ahead in the polls" has been hilarious, and Santorum getting to the top so close to the actual caucus would only enhance that. I seriously thought there'd be no chance for him (or anyone else) to get such a last minute polling surge in. The only way this would be better is if Huntsman managed to get to the top of the polls in NH- which, if Romney does poorly enough in Iowa, is actually plausible.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:01 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:Santorum is surging in Iowa!

Quoted for disturbing mental imagery.
wee free kings

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:26 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:It was only about a century and a half ago that the vast majority of blacks were freed from slavery without any property or wealth to their names- this allowed them little means to help themselves or their children to advance, who in turn had the same issue, so on and so on, until the present. That is what affirmative action is addressing.


Then why is affirmative action based on race and not socio-economic status? Why should a rich black kid get affirmative action but not the poor "disadvantaged" white kid?

I wouldn't be so adamantly opposed to AA if it was based on poverty rather than explicitly using race as a criterion. To change it for our little "RACISM!" argument, I believe that AA is racism because the law changes based on a person's race. If the law had been "must accept x% poor" rather than "must accept x% black", it would not be racist, even though it would help more black people than white people.

Personally, I like Texas's version of it best (for education that is); if you are in the top 10% of your class in any public high school, you are automatically accepted to any state university. So if you live in a shitty neighborhood, you don't get (as severely) screwed over.

Ghostbear wrote:Yes, they're dead, but the current generation of minorities is primarily descendant from them.


You keep using that word. I don't think you know what "minorities" means; most "minorities" in the US are not Afromerican. And the ones that are, have quite a bit of "white" ancestry.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Cathy » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:45 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Personally, I like Texas's version of it best (for education that is); if you are in the top 10% of your class in any public high school, you are automatically accepted to any state university. So if you live in a shitty neighborhood, you don't get (as severely) screwed over.

Personally, I live in Texas, and it's a really shitty deal. I went to a well-off high school with a graduation class of 1050 people. The top 105 were auto-accepted to their colleges of choice. Others had 4.0+ (on the 6 point scale) but were cut off from this.

Someone who goes to a totally shitty middle-of-nowhere school with a graduating class of 100 people has their top 10 get auto-accepts -- even if they're twice as dumb as the 106th person in my graduating class.

It's really not a good system.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Hawknc » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:52 am UTC

Bear in mind that the kids in the middle-of-nowhere school might have only had half the opportunities that students in a well-off city school have. Presumably those who didn't get auto-accepted could still apply for a position based on merit, so they weren't barred from any entry at all. It's not a perfect system, but it's remarkably egalitarian for a place like Texas.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:05 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:it's remarkably egalitarian for a place like Texas.


As dangerous as it is to tempt the purple-voiced gods, especially when they come to your defense

That comment shows an inherent prejudice. Sure, Texas has a few crazies, as does every state, but Texas has one of the strongest economies in the US, better than average health system in spite of some of the worst obesity in the US, its capitol has the 3rd largest homosexual community, and is very much involved in the tech industry and other sciences; anyone remember "Houston, we have a problem"? It's not all cattle ranchers and country music.

Now, Mississippi on the other hand...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gd1 and 11 guests