Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » race, justice, and survey methodology (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: race, justice, and survey methodology
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
so it sounds like you agree that your usage of the word racism is very non standard, but that others are being unnecessarily pedantic and attempting to derail the conversation when they suggest that what you call racism isn't racism.

And even more so when they criticise arguments made from that particular academic meaning of the word and otherwise try to prove that it doesn't exist in that sense by relying on a switch to the colloquial sense as evidence, never mind actively avoiding addressing the fact that the academic sense has far greater utility in describing a specific class of problems than simply standing in as a vague synonym for prejudice.
I don't do that. What I do is deliberately challenge your reliance on the confusion to make implications that aren't warranted by an academic definition, and your attempt to assert into common discussions - where the common definition is being used by participants - extremist arguments that only make sense under the academic definition. And I do this, because I view this efforts on your part as propaganda intended to have effects based on the confusion between the common definition and the academic definition that can, will and are intended to change the meaning of concepts that do in fact rely on the full context of the common definition.

I always like it though when someone tries to pre-empt criticism by aggressively asserting their opponents are engaged in a tactic they themselves employ. In this case obviously trying to claim it's people relying on a common understanding of a word are being manipulative rather than the person who's using a particular definition deliberately to try and achieve a social end by fiat.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SO, in other words, you engage in active motive speculation and try to derail my arguments by imputing such false accusations rather than actually addressing points I'm making. Thanks for clarifying that.

quote:
always like it though when someone tries to pre-empt criticism by aggressively asserting their opponents are engaged in a tactic they themselves employ. In this case obviously trying to claim it's people relying on a common understanding of a word are being manipulative rather than the person who's using a particular definition deliberately to try and achieve a social end by fiat.
Indeed. Very amusing given that that's exactly what you're doing here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The official taboo on "motive speculation" here has always amused me. Occasionally people accuse others of that but I think it would be a difficult if not futile exercise to find someone here who doesn't engage in it.

You can have a discussion or you can teach a lesson in the proper use of language. Doing both at once and seeing it as a debate tactic is just kinda sad and irritating.

That's not to say I don't appreciate being corrected when I say something stupid(ly). [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The official taboo on "motive speculation" here has always amused me. Occasionally people accuse others of that but I think it would be a difficult if not futile exercise to find someone here who doesn't engage in it.

While I'm sure people do try to sort out what someone is saying something and have correct or incorrect theories about it, I don't think it's all that unreasonable to say "Take people at their word for what they mean rather than attacking them for having a secret agenda that you speculate them must be trying to advance"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
SO, in other words, you engage in active motive speculation and try to derail my arguments by imputing such false accusations rather than actually addressing points I'm making. Thanks for clarifying that.

No, Pyr, Seriati's right. That doesn't mean he's right about everything; maybe your theories have something to them, maybe not. But your discussion style is very much employing deliberate confusion in order to obscure what point you're actually trying to make. We are interested to hear your ideas, but not when the idea is merely a reiteration of a definition whose purpose for being is circular to the point its use is trying to demonstrate.

I would suggest you consider how seriously you are really taking comments made by others here, because it honestly feels like you summarily ignore anything people say and simply repeat your point while asserting that our attempt to create lines of communication with you are an attempt to "derail" your point. It's your point that we would actually like to address, and your method of argumentation is actually the thing preventing that. Help us to speak with you better, and you'll see the resistance fade away.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Take people at their word for what they mean rather than attacking them for having a secret agenda that you speculate them must be trying to advance"
My personal issue is that if I "take people at their word" I end up having to dismiss 90% of their content as gibberish and feel forced to read between the lines to figure out what they are trying to say or what their position is.

You need a decoder ring or psychic gifts to get past the arguing for argument's sake that goes on here sometimes. Or sorry, semantic debates.

Rafi's quotes of a source without editorializing them and seeing all the responses to them as if it was his point are at once a breath of fresh air and a perfect example of how badly we all suck at communicating without motive speculation.

At least when communicating in person we can use non-verbal queues to fill in some blanks. Here, we can only use context and past history of the writer.

[ September 16, 2015, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone here clearly has a point of view, otherwise why bother "sharing"? We don't need to declare it in headline form on every post for the rest of us who know each other to know what their angle is. Sometimes it's partisan, but sometimes it's about completeness or definitional clarity. Debate requires leaning into each other's comments in order to get at what wasn't explicitly said.

Rafi is a good example of someone who posts and runs rather than engage in that sort of discussion where he will have to defend comments. It leaves the rest of us in a position of having to do that for him; it's not motive speculation, but more filling in blanks he (for some reason) won't reveal for himself. There aren't many others here who as regularly engage in that sort of tactic.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
SO, in other words, you engage in active motive speculation and try to derail my arguments by imputing such false accusations rather than actually addressing points I'm making. Thanks for clarifying that.

No, Pyr, Seriati's right. That doesn't mean he's right about everything; maybe your theories have something to them, maybe not. But your discussion style is very much employing deliberate confusion in order to obscure what point you're actually trying to make. We are interested to hear your ideas, but not when the idea is merely a reiteration of a definition whose purpose for being is circular to the point its use is trying to demonstrate.

I would suggest you consider how seriously you are really taking comments made by others here, because it honestly feels like you summarily ignore anything people say and simply repeat your point while asserting that our attempt to create lines of communication with you are an attempt to "derail" your point. It's your point that we would actually like to address, and your method of argumentation is actually the thing preventing that. Help us to speak with you better, and you'll see the resistance fade
away.

I disagree, I don't think Pyrtolin tries to deliberately confuse people. I DO think he tries to stake out and defend the semantic territory on which the debate will happen, and I think this often spirals into endless quibbling. So I'm not saying it's an effective or ideal style. But I don't think it's the same thing as trying to manipulate people by confusing them.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...And therefore those skilled in war bring the enemy to the field of battle and are not brought there by him."

...Unless they are stubborn internet posters who see little art in warfare. [Wink]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I disagree, I don't think Pyrtolin tries to deliberately confuse people. I DO think he tries to stake out and defend the semantic territory on which the debate will happen, and I think this often spirals into endless quibbling. So I'm not saying it's an effective or ideal style. But I don't think it's the same thing as trying to manipulate people by confusing them.

I should have been a bit more clear. I don't mean I think Pyr intentionally desires to confuse people. I mean that he intentionally employs a style of argument that he knows will create confusion. This may seem like a fine point, but if anything I'm implying more that his posts lack charity and rather than suggesting there is any ill intent in them. I don't think he desires quibbling, but he knows very well that this will result from posting in a certain way and he does it anyhow.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean that he intentionally employs a style of argument that he knows will create confusion.
Don't we all confuse, at least a little (hint)? Pyrtolin is one of most well-informed posters here AND has a particular intellectually oriented point of view. Often when someone doesn't understand him, they misinterpret what he says and argue against that misunderstanding. FWIW, I don't always take the time to completely absorb his complex points and sometimes don't understand them, myself. I give him credit for the (usually) patient way he spends a lot more time here than most trying to correct those misapplied counter-arguments.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean that he intentionally employs a style of argument that he knows will create confusion.
Just the opposite- I try to address confusion and clarify when people are making false arguments based on mixing definitions.

The problem comes when someone replies to me saying "what you secretly mean is this" and even after I clarify and explain what I do mean explicitly, they keep coming backs and saying "but what you really, secretly mean is this other thing" which is often the exact opposite of what I've explicitly said that I mean.

FRom my perspective the confusion doesn't come from my efforts to clarify exactly what I mean but rather from assertions of others about what I "really" mean instead of actually engaging the issues or ideas.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I mean that he intentionally employs a style of argument that he knows will create confusion.
Just the opposite- I try to address confusion and clarify when people are making false arguments based on mixing definitions.

The problem comes when someone replies to me saying "what you secretly mean is this" and even after I clarify and explain what I do mean explicitly, they keep coming backs and saying "but what you really, secretly mean is this other thing" which is often the exact opposite of what I've explicitly said that I mean.

FRom my perspective the confusion doesn't come from my efforts to clarify exactly what I mean but rather from assertions of others about what I "really" mean instead of actually engaging the issues or ideas.

Yes, I think what you say happens too. But tell my in all honesty - how many times have you made posts which devolved into arguing over what a word means? Assuming the answer is "a lot" don't you think that's an unnecessary waste of time when getting over the language itself it hardly the deepest thing that can be discussed?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ABsolutely, which is why I've noted that skipping the points that I'mm king in favor of arguing over the terms I'm using is a form of derailment. I try to actively avoid such digressions except where I see my meaning or someone else's being misrepresented, intentionally or not, in ways that undercut productive discussion
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When you use a word in a way that is dramatically different from its commonly used meaning, even if that meaning might be accepted by certain groups of academics or other subcultures - it is you who are derailing conversation due to your non standard usage. ANd thus it is you who are 'undercutting productive discussion'.

You use the word racism to mean racism (discrimination based upon race) + classism (discrimination based upon SES) + network effects + familiarity bias (preferring the familiar to the unfamiliar) + non discriminatory practices that happen to disproportionately impact particular races (such as increased police presence in high crime areas, or the fact that police make more stops during the night, etc.).

There is no reason why society should accept or agree with the much more encompassing definition.

So it isn't 'derailment' to clarify what you mean when you use the term since it is so dramatically different from its normal and well understood meaning.

Especially when you then claim that individuals are racist (or 'white supremecist') when they say that disparity in outcomes are due to factors that are not predominantly race based, but rather SES, economics, network effects, or other identified factors.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the arguments here often get to a point where the precise meanings of the terms being used actually serve to frame the debate. They get to this point very quickly because of the history of interaction between the same posters and on the same ideas.

So I don't blame anyone for arguing these points, really. It's not always derailment. Along with differing values, it's the core of the disagreement.

But it does get old, too, and it's hard to call it constructive debate.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You use the word racism to mean racism (discrimination based upon race) + classism (discrimination based upon SES) + network effects + familiarity bias (preferring the familiar to the unfamiliar) + non discriminatory practices that happen to disproportionately impact particular races (such as increased police presence in high crime areas, or the fact that police make more stops during the night, etc.).
No. I use it to mea "Prejudice based on race in combination with societal power to have harmful effects on similarly identified people as whole"

It intersects with other forms of social injustice, but you only get to your misrepresentation here because you refuse do dig deeper ans ask why people of a given race are more affected by certain injustices than others, never mind looking at what the3 downline effects of being affected over time has been as infrastructures built up and entrenched those biases.

quote:
non discriminatory practices that happen to disproportionately impact particular races
This is the most egregious of the way that you miss the point. Someone posted it recently, but I'll remind you again of the quote "The law, in it's attention to equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges"

It was mad on the basis of class, but the logic carries over. A nominally equal law that has a disproportionate impact on different races exposes racial inequity and contributes to it so long as the racial inequity remains.

Disparate impact is, de facto, discriminatory. And when it's discriminatory in a harmful way, it represents a systemic injustice.

And even there we get closer to the heart of why the distinction between basic prejudices and discrimination and those that are combined with the power to oppress or harm segments of society is important- it directly prevents people from falling into the trap of pretending that nominal discrimination in more important than discriminatory effect. IT allows us to see the discriminatory injustice embodied in the nominally equal law that it's illegal for anyone to sleep under a bridge and see that a more just solution might be a law that says that an person in need is guaranteed a publicly funded bed to sleep in so that they do not have to sleep under bridges. While that does nominally discriminate in favor of the homeless as they have the most need, the outcome is more equitable across the board, as it doesn't provide those at the bottom with any more than those at the top already have, just the bare minimum to establish a common baseline for opportunity.

quote:
There is no reason why society should accept or agree with the much more encompassing definition.
Indeed. And that's a false argument, because there is indeed no need for you to use that definition in your own communication if you don't want to. Only to be aware of it so that you can honestly interpret what someone else is saying when they're clearly applying it. The fact that you choose not to use a word in a certain way does not negate the fact that it's actively dishonest to reinterpret the words of another who is using it that way.

quote:
So it isn't 'derailment' to clarify what you mean when you use the term since it is so dramatically different from its normal and well understood meaning.
And that's not what I claims. What I claimed is that it is dearaliment to ignore clarifications and construct arguments and assert hidden motives based on your preferred meaning of the word, such that the point gets left behind and the argument devolves into repeatedly correcting misrepresentations.

quote:
Especially when you then claim that individuals are racist (or 'white supremecist') when they say that disparity in outcomes are due to factors that are not predominantly race based, but rather SES, economics, network effects, or other identified factors.
Which is a thing that I haven't done. I've pointed out places where you've effectively argued that it's natural that there are racial disparities along those lines by refusing to acknowledge that the fact that a given race consistently is at the short end of the stick across all of those categories is a problem or sign that there's something inequitable going on. And you seem to be very confused on the point of noting that our society exhibits white supremacy at the moment- a state descriptor- with an accusation of any given individual being someone who intentionally works toward that as a goal, rather than just implicitly supporting it as the status quo if they don't make an active effort to unwind it. (Which again, is only brought up at all because other here where mischaracterizing the use of the phrase in a similar way and attacking the ideas of others under false premises based on that misuse)

Especially in the case of public officials and law enforcement making the assumption, that a black person is likely to be poor (and the cascade of assumptions that flow out form there) and then acting based on that profile actively promotes racism, even if the statistics nominally justify the assumption. If anything, the only way to start breaking the cycle is to make an active effort to be sure to discard assumptions in that case and to instead treat the person as an individual without asusmptions.

[ September 17, 2015, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
IT allows us to see the discriminatory injustice embodied in the nominally equal law that it's illegal for anyone to sleep under a bridge and see that a more just solution might be a law that says that an person in need is guaranteed a publicly funded bed to sleep in so that they do not have to sleep under bridges. While that does nominally discriminate in favor of the homeless as they have the most need, the outcome is more equitable across the board, as it doesn't provide those at the bottom with any more than those at the top already have, just the bare minimum to establish a common baseline for opportunity.
This gets back to a question I posed earlier in this discussion.

In what ways does a law to combat racism, (blatant, entrenched systemic or otherwise) differ from a class centric law which does not target by race?
quote:
Especially in the case of public officials and law enforcement making the assumption, that a black person is likely to be poor (and the cascade of assumptions that flow out form there) and then acting based on that profile actively promotes racism, even if the statistics nominally justify the assumption. If anything, the only way to start breaking the cycle is to make an active effort to be sure to discard assumptions in that case and to instead treat the person as an individual without assumptions.
How do we solve this? What real world actions help change this behavior? How do you institute or enforce these changes of thought?

I don’t suggest “ignore racism” and it will go away. I suggest “break the cycles that reinforce those assumptions and racism diminishes.” The way I see it only one method is actionable. The other is fantasy.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In what ways does a law to combat racism, (blatant, entrenched systemic or otherwise) differ from a class centric law which does not target by race?
It compensates for various forms of selection bias that help compensate for factors beyond immediate economic issues.

Affirmative action laws- requirements that employers work to hire qualified candidates in proportion to representation of race in the population are a good example.

Even with an overall bump in income, a huge part of professional success comes from who you know and connections and support in your proximate family and community.

IF employers hire purely race blind, then the fact that there are far more qualified white candidate in proportion to race and job opening in a given field means that that disparity will perpetuate itself, since more white people employed in the field means more white family networks producing more qualified candidates while other minorities will produce fewer candidates.

On the other hand, if employers have to make the effort to find qualified candidates in proportion to race, or at lest break ties in favor of a more equitable racial balance, then you increase the opportunity for minorities to grow similar networks on an equal footing.

If you ignore race, you perpetuate the structural inequity, even if baseline income is adjusted, because the issue goes far beyond simply being able to afford to try to get into the field, but also involved compensating for being far behind on the generational wealth represented by connections to people in the field. (And similar goes for just getting access to and succeeding in the proper higher education/professional training institutions to actually make it).

On the other hand if you pay attention to race and intentionally break the cycle by making sure qualified candidates of all races have more equitable access to the field, you don't take anything away from other qualified candidate except the artificial advantage they have due to overwhelming numbers

(Even more, if you consider the fact that there isn't an exhaustive search for each position, so, through force of numbers, lower qualified candidates of the group that represents an overwhelming majority frequently get a nod before higher qualified minority candidates who don't even manage to make it on the radar. The only thing that such people "lose" is the artificial advantage that comes from the bias in the market)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, as an extra add on there- the xenophobia/unfamiliarity factor is mitigated as well, since representation of minorities in larger proportion means that their distinctive characteristics become part of what is considered familiar and no longer register as outsiders or play to biases that they tend to to have as much aptitude in a given field.

[ September 18, 2015, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Pyr you're endorsing the 40 acres and a mule solution? This means giving black people some compensation or outright advantage to make up for the disadvantage they began with after the Civil War.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the disadvantages that's been inflicted on them since the Civil War.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Affirmative action laws- requirements that employers work to hire qualified candidates in proportion to representation of race in the population are a good example.
Do you believe that the value of these types of laws that could pass are of equal value to the types of laws based on classism which could pass?

Would you factor in pushback from those displaced by affirmative action? What about determining at what point you declare "mission accomplished" and roll back those measures? Do those factors make targeting based on economics a better long term strategy?

Either way we are talking about forcing action through law in order to (eventually) change the way people think and behave. Which path is more likely to succeed? Is the timeline for one far shorter than the other?

Which is easier to enforce?

[ September 18, 2015, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
So Pyr you're endorsing the 40 acres and a mule solution? This means giving black people some compensation or outright advantage to make up for the disadvantage they began with after the Civil War.

WHat outright advantage are you talking about? The removal of an active disadvantage does not amount to an advantage. Unless you're saying that being better qualified by passed up for a lower qualified low hanging fruit counts as an equitable state?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
So Pyr you're endorsing the 40 acres and a mule solution? This means giving black people some compensation or outright advantage to make up for the disadvantage they began with after the Civil War.

WHat outright advantage are you talking about? The removal of an active disadvantage does not amount to an advantage. Unless you're saying that being better qualified by passed up for a lower qualified low hanging fruit counts as an equitable state?
You only mentioned affirmative action, but how is that not granting an advantage? The aggregate effect is supposed to be a balancing out of stats, but in the individual case someone is being hired on account of his race over someone white, which in that instance disadvantages the white person. I'm not assessing the merits of this, but merely trying to nail down what you're saying.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you believe that the value of these types of laws that could pass are of equal value to the types of laws based on classism which could pass?
Some have already passed, like the one we're talking about. I don't see this as very relevant, to be honest as it's basically an endorsement of tyranny of the majority in a system that's supposed to have explicit protections for the minority against abusive attacks from the majority.

If can only be equal to you if and when I can convince you to vote to regard me as an equal then I am, de facto, a second class citizen, subservient to your power to grant or deny me equitable treatment.

quote:
Would you factor in pushback from those displaced by affirmative action? What about determining at what point you declare "mission accomplished" and roll back those measures? Do those factors make targeting based on economics a better long term strategy?
If there was no pushback, then the measures really wouldn't be necessary. The degree to which a given privileged group fights against a move toward equity is a pretty good measure of how deeply entrenched a given bias is.

The measures roll themselves back automatically. They only actually influence behavoir so long as effort needs to be made to correct for structural biases. IF there's little to no bias in the pool of applicants, then the law essentially has no effect. If the bias shifts in some other direction than the law helps prevent a feedback loop from coming to be that exacerbates the slip.

quote:
Either way we are talking about forcing action through law in order to (eventually) change the way people think and behave. Which path is more likely to succeed? Is the timeline for one far shorter than the other?
Each path done right will succeed in its own right. A comparison isn't relevant, because each is addressing a different form of inequity. This isn't an either/or issue. It's a both/and situation.

If your car has bad brakes and bad tires, you don't fix the brakes and hope the problem with the tires will fix itself, even if you may be able to point to ways that driving with bad brakes is doing extra damage to the tires and vice versa. You have to fix each problems in its own way to get everything back up to par.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
So Pyr you're endorsing the 40 acres and a mule solution? This means giving black people some compensation or outright advantage to make up for the disadvantage they began with after the Civil War.

WHat outright advantage are you talking about? The removal of an active disadvantage does not amount to an advantage. Unless you're saying that being better qualified by passed up for a lower qualified low hanging fruit counts as an equitable state?
You only mentioned affirmative action, but how is that not granting an advantage? The aggregate effect is supposed to be a balancing out of stats, but in the individual case someone is being hired on account of his race over someone white, which in that instance disadvantages the white person. I'm not assessing the merits of this, but merely trying to nail down what you're saying.
Let's say we're playing poker and I get dealt two hands that I can pick between at will while you get dealt one hand to play against me. Would it really be making me disadvantaged to insist that we each only get one hand?

Look up the Rigged Monopoly experiment as well. I can't find a good text summary of it at the moment, but there's a lot of video out there. EVen when both players know the game is rigged- that one play is getting more money from passing Go, getting to roll twice a turn, etc... The player that the game is biased in favor of will attribute their success to being a better player and not to having an unfair advantage, and even act in aggressive, effectively oppressive ways toward the unfavored player. Would you really characterize it as giving a disadvantage to the privileged player in that scenario to say that they actualyl had to play by the same rules as the other player?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If your car has bad brakes and bad tires, you don't fix the brakes and hope the problem with the tires will fix itself, even if you may be able to point to ways that driving with bad brakes is doing extra damage to the tires and vice versa. You have to fix each problems in its own way to get everything back up to par.
Racisim isn't bad breaks or bad tires though. It's getting pulled over and not knowing if it's because your car is in dissrepair or if you are just guilty of driving while black. If your car was in good repair, you would know and the cop wouldn't have a credible reason to why they pulled you over when called out for it.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Look up the Rigged Monopoly experiment as well. I can't find a good text summary of it at the moment, but there's a lot of video out there. EVen when both players know the game is rigged- that one play is getting more money from passing Go, getting to roll twice a turn, etc... The player that the game is biased in favor of will attribute their success to being a better player and not to having an unfair advantage, and even act in aggressive, effectively oppressive ways toward the unfavored player. Would you really characterize it as giving a disadvantage to the privileged player in that scenario to say that they actualyl had to play by the same rules as the other player?

Your chief fallacy here is called affirming the consequent, aka the assumption of causation. IF the game is rigged THEN the beneficiary will deny it was unfair. Your claim is that in the case of a beneficiary who denies the game was unfair this is proof the game was rigged. This is a fundamental logical error, one of the first ones in the book.

The entire core of our discussion is that you're framing a result as being caused by something we're not sure is causing it. In fact there's reason to believe that's not what's causing it, or at least not principally. Since you do not admit into your calculus any data other than the result, you actually forbid yourself even entering the discussion about possible causes; you are obsessed with the result only and choose to see it in a certain light.

[ September 18, 2015, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I might be a little more open to these ideas if the activists and media weren't exusively focusing on race these days. If poverty and racism both need fixing, they should both get focus.

There's been no argument made that putting policies in place to alleviate poverty and the conditions that create it wouldn't help minorities more then the past year or two of protests have. The only response appears to be "Well, racism is a separate problem that is so much worse." Well, piss on that. Ivory tower white people lecturing to those who have actually lived in or are living in poverty is something I have little patience for.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
If your car has bad brakes and bad tires, you don't fix the brakes and hope the problem with the tires will fix itself, even if you may be able to point to ways that driving with bad brakes is doing extra damage to the tires and vice versa. You have to fix each problems in its own way to get everything back up to par.
Racisim isn't bad breaks or bad tires though. It's getting pulled over and not knowing if it's because your car is in dissrepair or if you are just guilty of driving while black. If your car was in good repair, you would know and the cop wouldn't have a credible reason to why they pulled you over when called out for it.
And when your car is in good repair, but you keep getting pulled over because cops know that people who look like you tend to have a problem somewhere that they can write a ticket for? (To avoid mixing metaphors here)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
IF the game is rigged THEN the beneficiary will deny it was unfair. Your claim is that in the case of a beneficiary who denies the game was unfair this is proof the game was rigged.
NO, the evidence of the rigging is in the statistical basis of the results of playing as well as in the direct observable difference in treatment of the players.

quote:
he entire core of our discussion is that you're framing a result as being caused by something we're not sure is causing it.
No, that is, again, your misrepresentation of my position. "Caused by" is your false assertion, and it won't magically become my argument no matter how many times you try to falsely put it in my mouth. Racial disparities are not "caused by" racism. That _are_ structural racism. The question then is to ask what needs to be done to correct those structural disparities. It can be informative to look at what initially caused them, but it's the curernt harm that they perptuate that's more relevant.

quote:
Since you do not admit into your calculus any data other than the result, you actually forbid yourself even entering the discussion about possible causes
That's pure nonsense. Better to say that since I'm willing to be honest about the current resulting state, I can actualyl honestly look for current causes and seek to correct them, while you, not willing to even admit to an honest evaluation of the results, end up going off chasing after false causes that mach your misrepresentation of the results.

Clear, self-perpetuating racial inequity exists. It does real harm to society as a whole, but especially to those as the losing end of it. If you deny those facts then there's no way you can look for honest solutions to those problems, instead you effectively assert that such inequity is a normal and natural state and falsely assume that fixing other issues is all that matters.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And when your car is in good repair, but you keep getting pulled over because cops know that people who look like you tend to have a problem somewhere that they can write a ticket for? (To avoid mixing metaphors here)
Then you can more easily demostrait a pattern of harassment.

By removing variables / excuses for targeting other than race you make solving race based issues that much easier.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1