Author Topic: California State Legislature wants to repeal section 31(Senate hasn't voted yet)  (Read 1416 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

Quote
The California Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment may appear on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.

The ballot measure would repeal Proposition 209, which prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Proposition 209 added the following provision to the California Constitution: "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Text of measure
Constitutional changes
See also: Article I, California Constitution
The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would be repealed:

Quote
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.

(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.

(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.


California Democrats don't need equal rights laws any more I guess.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
On further thought, I hope California State Senate ratifies the initiative so it can go on the ballot for 2020. The Republicans will be able to "make political hay" out of that nation wide for years to come if it does go to ballot.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
I read a bit on this due to your post. Apparently there was an attempt in 2014 or something to repeal it already, which failed due to huge Asian pushback. When you look at the current list of arguments for/against you will notice a conspicuous trend along those lines...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
I read a bit on this due to your post. Apparently there was an attempt in 2014 or something to repeal it already, which failed due to huge Asian pushback. When you look at the current list of arguments for/against you will notice a conspicuous trend along those lines...

Affirmative Action efforts are widely known to significantly harm Asians and their ability to access colleges. Because they are the ones over-represented there, not whites.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
I read a bit on this due to your post. Apparently there was an attempt in 2014 or something to repeal it already, which failed due to huge Asian pushback. When you look at the current list of arguments for/against you will notice a conspicuous trend along those lines...

Affirmative Action efforts are widely known to significantly harm Asians and their ability to access colleges. Because they are the ones over-represented there, not whites.

I'm only aware of this issue at Harvard.  Where else do you hear about it?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
So California's legislature seeking to pass ACA-5 to repeal the Equal right protection in their state constitution for the purpose of being able to award millions of dollars worth of contracts to minority and woman owned businesses on the basis of their race, gender, or sexual identity is not racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way shape or form? They decided these people are unable to compete on the basis of those things, so we need to enact special laws "to help them" do so?

You're equating creating (or in this case repealing, though I'm taking your word for what they're doing) laws to guarantee access to services to people who are discriminated against because of their race to be racist?  I'll guess that you support people's rights to discriminate against people because of their race, if their religion encourages or allows it, because that's called "religious freedom."

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

Quote
Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the following:
  • "Californians have built the fifth largest and strongest economy in the world, but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s prosperity—particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts, hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal opportunity for all and investment in our communities."
  • "Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become one of only eight states that do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors considered in hiring, allotting state contracts or accepting students into the state’s public colleges and universities."
  • "As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for change. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-neutral solutions cannot fix problems steeped in race."
  • "The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter."[/lit]
U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37) wrote a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Senate President Toni Atkins, and House Speaker Anthony Rendon, asking them to support the constitutional amendment. Rep. Bass stated, "Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing field for women and people of color. Before Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real progress. But the Wall Street-backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their economic stranglehold from an increasingly diverse and highly educated population in California; a population better situated to compete in jobs, education, government contracts and other areas of the state’s economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups limited competition in their industries and benefited their own businesses by erecting new institutional barriers burdening the ability of California’s women and people of color achieve positions of economic and business leadership."

I don't know, it seems to me that it isn't about services, it's about giving out government contracts and grants on the basis of the race, gender, or any other criteria they desire to use. Considering all that ACA 5 does is repeal section 31 of their state constitution, which means they'd be able implement any discriminatory practice they wish, so long as they remain compliant with Federal Law. And that it's needed because evidently they can't conceive of drafting a law which might favor small businesses without respect to who owns it, it might help a straight white male on accident and that would be unjust in their world. So they need to repeal the equal rights amendment so they can target their favored groups and pick winners and losers at will instead.

Because minority groups simply cannot compete against straight white men unless they make the laws put then at a disadvantage, they're just that superior to everyone else.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
The text of the part of their constitution they are trying to repeal.  There is no replacement.

Quote
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Who are the racists again?


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Those who, in the other thread, insisting that they do not define racism in the way the far-left does, would be obliged in this context to describe repealing this amendment as a racist act. If racism is actions or attitudes, and not merely systems that produce results, then the idea of making it legal to discriminate based on race should be seen as problematic at best. I know the argument: but they'll only do it in favor of those who are oppressed; and therefore it's a results-based calculus meant to correct an imbalance. However the results-based argument is in the camp of the far-left, so I don't believe you can have it both ways here: you either define racism strictly as systemic, in which case any systemic change to create equal outcomes is acceptable; or you don't, in which case outcomes cannot be the final arbiter on fighting racism, and allowing legal discrimination is a regression to worse times. The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Those who, in the other thread, insisting that they do not define racism in the way the far-left does, would be obliged in this context to describe repealing this amendment as a racist act.
No, it really doesn't.  Now, it might be that the purpose for doing so was racist, but the act of removing this clause is not in and of itself racist.  This is pretty basic logic, but also requires you to misunderstand the law.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

Your question is loaded and at cross purposed with itself. Let's assume this had been posed as two separate questions:

1) Are you saying that it is racist to repeat a law that was intended to thwart racist practices?
-The answer to this would presumably be yes, on the face of it. The law itself says you can't discriminate, so repealing it says you can. This one is super-simple to answer.

2) Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law?
-If the law was engineered poorly and required a newer or modified version, I would agree that this would not be racist, the idea being we didn't quite get it right and let's try again. But they are not modifying it; in fact the repeal is saying the opposite of the law should be the norm, that one should be able to discriminate. This isn't a case of bad engineering as you suggest, but of the fact that the law as intended is not what is desired in the current climate. They want to be able to discriminate, with the obvious aim being affirmative action.

So this boils down not to fixing a bad law, but to a redefinition of what racism is. What did I say in the other thread: have fun wading in the definition game? The repeal is very clearly right on topic of the definition game. Those of you here that see yourselves as liberals but deny that you use the nomenclature of the far left, you have been left behind quite a while ago, because the new mainstream in the circles that matter (universities, BLM, and soon regular politics) uses the new definitions. Repealing this law is based specifically on the redefinition that racism can only occur when punching down, and that by definition an oppressed person cannot be racist towards an oppressor; and that systemically speaking racism can only occur when an oppressed group is being oppressed, but not when they are being helped. So telling a black person "black people don't do well so you're not hired" and not hiring them would be racist under the new terms, but "black people don't do well so you're hired" would not be racist since the stereotyped recognition in the latter case is meant to help, even though it does employ a statistical approach to how to treat an individual.

So the repeal is about making it clear that fighting racism means unequal treatment if it leads to equal outcomes. The old definition would have called this racist, but the current one calls anything other than this racist. What strikes me as strange is why this isn't clear to everyone.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Sigh.

Yes, "racism" (same as "sexism" and "homophobia") are used to conflate lots of different things. I'm not very happy about that either, I think multiple and more precise words might have been better.

But at its core, by the word "racism", people mean "bad things that contribute to racial injustice", and I think they have always meant that. The 'definition' hasn't changed, it's just that at different times they think and emphasize differently about what those bad things are.

Now what do we mean by "bad things". Again this is MetaMorality 101:
- deontology focuses on actions and clear cut rules about what one ought or oughtn't do.
- virtue ethics focuses on attitudes and beliefs, the inner traits of the person.
- consequentialism focuses solely on consequences (or at least expected consequences).

And you'll always see a conflation/mixture of all three of the above, when people discuss what bad things are 'racism'. Some will speak about beliefs (which corresponds to virtue ethics), some will speak about actions, some will speak about consequences.

Now, I'm a rule utilitarian, which is technically a branch of consequentialism, but in its respect for some good clean rules comes close to deontology.

As such the debate about "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" is basically (at its charitable best) a conflict between whether a strong cleaner rule against all discrimination, is better than a fuzzier rule which accepts 'positive discrimination'.

I respect both sides on this, if said sides are actually honest in trying to figure out which rule actually will have the best consequences and will reduce racial injustice in the long term. I can see both sides there, as long as both sides are honestly focusing on that.

But if people are just being deontologists or virtue ethicists and DON'T actually care about the consequences to racial injustice, just going about saying "Well, I don't discriminate/I'm color-blind therefore I'm not a racist".... that's almost like a slave trader saying they're not a racist, because they'd be just as willing to trade white people if the law allowed them to do so. Okay, you 'non-racist' slave trade, by your own weird-ass definition you're not a racist, but it doesn't actually matter if you're doing a very bad thing that contributes to racial injustice, just because that's how the system is set up.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 12:00:31 PM by Aris Katsaris »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Can't change the title, but the California State Senate did vote on it. It is now on the Ballot for November, the people of California get to decide if they want their state to be able to discriminate against people on the basis of race. (ostensibly in the name of Affirmative action, but not actually codified into law)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Now, I'm a rule utilitarian, which is technically a branch of consequentialism, but in its respect for some good clean rules comes close to deontology.

As such the debate about "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination" is basically (at its charitable best) a conflict between whether a strong cleaner rule against all discrimination, is better than a fuzzier rule which accepts 'positive discrimination'.

I respect both sides on this, if said sides are actually honest in trying to figure out which rule actually will have the best consequences and will reduce racial injustice in the long term. I can see both sides there, as long as both sides are honestly focusing on that.

But if people are just being deontologists or virtue ethicists and DON'T actually care about the consequences to racial injustice, just going about saying "Well, I don't discriminate/I'm color-blind therefore I'm not a racist".... that's almost like a slave trader saying they're not a racist, because they'd be just as willing to trade white people if the law allowed them to do so. Okay, you 'non-racist' slave trade, by your own weird-ass definition you're not a racist, but it doesn't actually matter if you're doing a very bad thing that contributes to racial injustice, just because that's how the system is set up.

See going back to an earlier post in this very thread. I don't believe (race/gender based) affirmative action is needed to accomplish what they're seeking to do.

They target the economic basis for the problem, and target based on that criteria. Something they're already legally allowed to do. Yes, that targeting is more difficult, and in some cases frustrating for their stated desires because lo and behold, white men and women, and people of Asian descent can also meet those socioeconomic criteria if race and gender is removed from consideration.

But of course, White people and asians who found themselves trapped in a bad school don't seem to need help, they're somehow able to help themselves. It's the blacks and (sometimes) hispanics who need the extra boost not because they specifically are in any more dire straights than their neighbors. But because "the aggregate numbers say things" in actuarial tables.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
TheDeamon, that's all fine but I don't think it addresses the issue of the new definitions, for instance those of BLM. For instance, the issue of defining "injustice" itself is on the table, so your statement -

Quote
But at its core, by the word "racism", people mean "bad things that contribute to racial injustice", and I think they have always meant that.

- is not some accepted thing; or if it was then it isn't any more. Some people define injustice as unequal opportunity, others as unequal outcome. These are mutually exclusive definitions, and it cannot be assumed that there is a standard understood meaning to these terms. Likewise, even your definition of consequentialism cannot be understood to be clear, because even the notion of getting desired results gets muddied if the results desired are based not on empirical data but on deontological notions. To the extent that concern with consequences could be seen as an extension of pragmatism, the typical mindset of this approach to life is that we have to figure out what the best outcomes are by trial and error in a sense; or by using data to get closer and closer to some kind of efficiency whose definition might be ephemeral. Pragmatism's problem has always been the lack of an end goal, but rather that part of using 'real world' sense is in trying to find that goal. The issue about affirmative action when seen through the lens of "equal outcomes above all" is that this is actually neither pragmatist nor consequentialist, because there is an a priori premise in place that X must be achieved, regardless of what this means or what its actual effect on the aggregate is. In other words, it doesn't ask "what effect does this have on the world" but rather just states as an axiom that equal outcomes is the goal. So none of your definitions really apply to this situation, and I think you're misreading what the current state of definitions is on the far-left.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
TheDeamon, that's all fine but I don't think it addresses the issue of the new definitions, for instance those of BLM. For instance, the issue of defining "injustice" itself is on the table, so your statement -

Quote
But at its core, by the word "racism", people mean "bad things that contribute to racial injustice", and I think they have always meant that.

That isn't my comment, that was Aris Katsaris. I hold to it being more about power and tribalism where tribal definitions become increasing narrow in an inverse relationship to how powerful an organization becomes, or believes itself to be.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

Your question is loaded and at cross purposed with itself. Let's assume this had been posed as two separate questions:

No, let's try to answer the question I asked, not however many questions you would like to change it into.

Quote
1) Are you saying that it is racist to repeat a law that was intended to thwart racist practices?
-The answer to this would presumably be yes, on the face of it. The law itself says you can't discriminate, so repealing it says you can. This one is super-simple to answer.

Perhaps there is a better formulation of the law that would provide greater benefit.  In that case, repealing the old law would be a good idea.

Quote
2) Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law?
-If the law was engineered poorly and required a newer or modified version, I would agree that this would not be racist, the idea being we didn't quite get it right and let's try again. But they are not modifying it; in fact the repeal is saying the opposite of the law should be the norm, that one should be able to discriminate. This isn't a case of bad engineering as you suggest, but of the fact that the law as intended is not what is desired in the current climate. They want to be able to discriminate, with the obvious aim being affirmative action.

Nothing but word games.  You love to deconstruct and reparse what other people write.  Not playing.

Quote
So this boils down not to fixing a bad law, but to a redefinition of what racism is.

Right, word games.  Not what the intention was of the people who are repealing it are aiming for, but what you impose on them. 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2020, 01:45:05 PM by Kasandra »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
1) Are you saying that it is racist to repeat a law that was intended to thwart racist practices?
-The answer to this would presumably be yes, on the face of it. The law itself says you can't discriminate, so repealing it says you can. This one is super-simple to answer.

Perhaps there is a better formulation of the law that would provide greater benefit.  In that case, repealing the old law would be a good idea.

In that case, you formulate the replacement, get agreement on the replacement among the sponsors, then you replace the previous formulation.

Repealing it and going "trust us" on an unspecified replacement should be an enormous red flag for everyone.

Quote
Quote
So this boils down not to fixing a bad law, but to a redefinition of what racism is.

Right, word games.  Not what the intention was of the people who are repealing it are aiming for, but what you impose on them.

So instead of fixing the ineffective parts of the existing law, they're instead opting for no law, and hoping that the general population doesn't want to see what is going on in the sausage factory while they go about doing whatever it is they intend to do.

Their lack of desire for transparency on what they intend to replace it with indicates they intend to play word games themselves, and they know that the general public would otherwise reject whatever it is they intend to replace it with. So they'll play on emotions, word games, and other high rhetoric to get it removed, then nothing the average person would like after that.

If it gets repealed, which I'll give 50/50 odds at this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see the repealed return as a ballot initiative(by voter petition) within a handful of election cycles.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

It is racist to repeal a law that prohibits discrimination based on race.  So advocating for that repeal is inherently racist.

As to your false premises.  This constitutional amendment was effective, or you would not need to repeal it.  It did thwart overtly racist practices, and since you want to implement racist practices you need to repeal it.

Are you saying that you can't argue a proposition in good faith but can only redefine it to pretend you are a good guy when you're really advocating straight up racist action by a government?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
- is not some accepted thing; or if it was then it isn't any more. Some people define injustice as unequal opportunity, others as unequal outcome. These are mutually exclusive definitions, and it cannot be assumed that there is a standard understood meaning to these terms. Likewise, even your definition of consequentialism cannot be understood to be clear, because even the notion of getting desired results gets muddied if the results desired are based not on empirical data but on deontological notions.

Just to be clear.  There's no definitional confusion.  Both sides know exactly what the words were intended to mean.  The left just plays a game of redefinition to allow them to argue for new meaning to the written word.

If you accept that there is confusion the game is already over.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
In that case, you formulate the replacement, get agreement on the replacement among the sponsors, then you replace the previous formulation.

How very partisan of you to want that in this case.  How come the Republicans tried to repeal the ACA 70 times and never had anything to replace it with?

Quote
So instead of fixing the ineffective parts of the existing law, they're instead opting for no law, and hoping that the general population doesn't want to see what is going on in the sausage factory while they go about doing whatever it is they intend to do.

Step one, unless you think they are indeed racists who are trying to make sure that racism goes unchecked.  You can't have it both ways by accusing Democrats of wanting too many protections for disadvantaged segments of the population and wanting to get rid of protections.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Just to be clear.  There's no definitional confusion.  Both sides know exactly what the words were intended to mean.  The left just plays a game of redefinition to allow them to argue for new meaning to the written word.

Do you think the current law serves the intent it was created for?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
- is not some accepted thing; or if it was then it isn't any more. Some people define injustice as unequal opportunity, others as unequal outcome. These are mutually exclusive definitions, and it cannot be assumed that there is a standard understood meaning to these terms. Likewise, even your definition of consequentialism cannot be understood to be clear, because even the notion of getting desired results gets muddied if the results desired are based not on empirical data but on deontological notions.

Just to be clear.  There's no definitional confusion.  Both sides know exactly what the words were intended to mean.  The left just plays a game of redefinition to allow them to argue for new meaning to the written word.

If you accept that there is confusion the game is already over.

It depends who you're talking to. I think some of the people here are confused about the logic of why certain things are called racist in groups like BLM. They may not be confused about the term as they grew up with it, but actually I don't believe that either. The groupthink coming from even small groups cannot help but permeate into the general consciousness and create a doublethink (i.e. contradictory things accepted at the same time), even if one doesn't notice it's happened. This is just a reality and is in a sense inevitable as soon as language games or updates are happening. You literally cannot avoid the confusion, so 'rising above it' is not exactly an option unless you're a hermit.

Regarding whether the 'game is already over', I believe the game is already over in the sense that you can't 'stop' people messing with thinking like this. You can oppose, or just roll with it, but there is no 'conclusion' to the upending of meanings of things, of finality to a group's mutual agreement when some parts of the group are seeking to perpetually undermine other parts of it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
It depends who you're talking to. I think some of the people here are confused about the logic of why certain things are called racist in groups like BLM. They may not be confused about the term as they grew up with it, but actually I don't believe that either. The groupthink coming from even small groups cannot help but permeate into the general consciousness and create a doublethink (i.e. contradictory things accepted at the same time), even if one doesn't notice it's happened. This is just a reality and is in a sense inevitable as soon as language games or updates are happening. You literally cannot avoid the confusion, so 'rising above it' is not exactly an option unless you're a hermit.

I don't recommend "rising above it."  You should reject it.  AI is perfectly capable of making an argument based on principal, but the current world is not requiring him to do so.  You should reject definitional games, here especially, but also in life, which is much harder, and make him explain his preferred policies and address the concerns.

Make AI explain how permitting the government to discriminate on the basis of race - a characteristic that the Supreme Court has already said requires strict scrutiny to apply because it is virtually never a valid basis for government power to be applied - will help reduce racism in our government.  It won't.  It will increase it.

Quote
Regarding whether the 'game is already over', I believe the game is already over in the sense that you can't 'stop' people messing with thinking like this. You can oppose, or just roll with it, but there is no 'conclusion' to the upending of meanings of things, of finality to a group's mutual agreement when some parts of the group are seeking to perpetually undermine other parts of it.

The "game" is over, because we've had 3 generations of education controlled by ever more radical leftist ideology.  As of now, virtually all means of communication are controlled by the radical left.  They have a massive control over the media, they control virtually all government bureaucracies,  they control enough of the courts, all of big tech and an increasingly significant number of the country's prosecutors.  They literally control the power to criminalize political thoughts and actions with which they disagree.

Looting and riots become "peaceful protests," homeowners defending themselves from violent mobs become "criminal harrassers oppressing free speech rights," people engaged in open insurrection that leads to multiple gun short deaths with open government facilitation are "peaceful protestors with important issues that aren't responsible for a few bad apples (who are probably secret racist agitators)."  Someone posts about it on Twitter?  Nope, banned or worse their posts are not pushed or pulled to those that have asked to receive them without any notice.

I didn't realize when the left said we've moved into a post truth world with the election of Trump, that they were not talking about Trump but rather themselves.  They lie with impunity, they repeatedly lie in the same ways over and over and over and not only never get called to account they have an army of useful idiots that rebroadcast and internalize their lies.  Meanwhile they wield the power to totally destroy people for just voicing disagreement, in violation of every principal upon which this country was founded.  They believe they have the right to oppress speach, religion, gun ownership, freedom of travel, freedom of association, the right to privacy (other than for abortions), all because they disagree with the person who is asserting those rights.

It's too late.  There are not enough people left who can think to correct this mess, and far too many that are actively pushing it.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
I don't recommend "rising above it."  You should reject it.  AI is perfectly capable of making an argument based on principal, but the current world is not requiring him to do so.  You should reject definitional games, here especially, but also in life, which is much harder, and make him explain his preferred policies and address the concerns.

Well, the thing of it is that some things in life do need updating, and many terms previously were insufficiently specific or relevant. To me there is an inevitable conflict between being stuck in your ways and between change just for the sake of change. You do need to allow for updates, and for rethinking concepts, but of course the pathological version of this is pushing for changes that are either partisan or else self-serving. But blocking all change just on principle throws the baby with the bathwater.

The problem is, honestly, we are very weak in understanding about things like thought and linguistics, so most people - maybe even especially experts - are idiots, to say nothing of the useful idiots you mention, because they simply have no idea what the results of their actions will be; "they know not what they do." Someone thinks they're "fighting for freedom" and can't see past the aesthetic of the phrase they say, and this applies to almost everyone. A few like George Orwell understood language better than that, but that is rare, especially in daily practice.

Quote
They literally control the power to criminalize political thoughts and actions with which they disagree.

This is the fact, already a reality in Canada, that makes the "I don't use the far-left definition" a sticking your head in the ground kind of answer. It doesn't ever stop at being just a theoretical disagreement if you let things go too far, and in the U.S., which is uniquely obsessed with defeating those who disagree, a pathological direction is virtually guaranteed. That fact alone is not the fault of the left, but of those who perpetuate and encourage a system of division.

Quote
They believe they have the right to oppress speach, religion, gun ownership, freedom of travel, freedom of association, the right to privacy (other than for abortions), all because they disagree with the person who is asserting those rights.

True. However the far-right was the same. This is why both sides need to learn to be disciplined enough to denounce the radicals on their own side rather than accepting a dubious 'coalition' to win elections. You'll never get that in a world of never-Trumpers and never-Bidens; if people will vote for a loser of a candidate just to win an election then they'll accept anything.

Quote
It's too late.  There are not enough people left who can think to correct this mess, and far too many that are actively pushing it.

It was too late in this sense as of WWII, when weaponized language become better understood. That much I'm 'at peace' with in the sense that I view it as a 'technological' development that can't be rolled back. All there is to do is do your best and hope we can keep it together. Much like the advent of nukes, things will never be the same, and yet we're still here (so far).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Step one, unless you think they are indeed racists who are trying to make sure that racism goes unchecked.  You can't have it both ways by accusing Democrats of wanting too many protections for disadvantaged segments of the population and wanting to get rid of protections.
I'm pretty sure none of your interlocutors actually believe that removing this clause is racist, but they do believe that, because of the specific way they misunderstand "leftist" definitions of racism, simply removing that clause must be racist on the part of Democrats because of what they think Democrats believe.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Step one, unless you think they are indeed racists who are trying to make sure that racism goes unchecked.  You can't have it both ways by accusing Democrats of wanting too many protections for disadvantaged segments of the population and wanting to get rid of protections.
I'm pretty sure none of your interlocutors actually believe that removing this clause is racist, but they do believe that, because of the specific way they misunderstand "leftist" definitions of racism, simply removing that clause must be racist on the part of Democrats because of what they think Democrats believe.

That would be the claim that is impossible to be racist against whites because they're the majority of the population and "hold all the power" and have inherent privilege baked into the simple fact they're white. Which is why White Privilege gets so much attention. "White privilege" is marginally valid, but more often than not, its a misnomer, and it distracts from what the actual problems are. The issues are closely linked to race, but arguably not in the manner many would like to claim it is. It isn't their race keeping them down. It's the social culture they've bought into, one that they only really share with members of their own race -- which is how the racial aspect enters into play.

It's why East Asians are so wildly successful in the United States while other racial minorities continue to insist that White People have rigged the system to be only in favor of whites. "The system is rigged against minorities" claim never seems to be able to account for the Asians for some reason.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Step one, unless you think they are indeed racists who are trying to make sure that racism goes unchecked.  You can't have it both ways by accusing Democrats of wanting too many protections for disadvantaged segments of the population and wanting to get rid of protections.
I'm pretty sure none of your interlocutors actually believe that removing this clause is racist, but they do believe that, because of the specific way they misunderstand "leftist" definitions of racism, simply removing that clause must be racist on the part of Democrats because of what they think Democrats believe.

It's flat out racist.  He's literally advocating that a provision that bars the government from discriminating on racist be removed so that it will be easier to discriminate based on race.

Just because he believes that he's serving a good interest doesn't make it okay.

Again, for the talk about privilege and needing to listen, as soon as you hear something that you find uncomfortable the listening ends and you immediately try to recast it as fake or somehow disingenuous.  The idea that discriminating based on race is good and not racist act is a lie.  It's a twisting of linguistics worthy of being included in 1984.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
No, I get it - you cannot distinguish between racism and policies meant to address the effects of racism, like affirmative action policies.  In fact, my guess is that you feel that affirmative action policies are by definition, not just in practice, racism.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
I know you mean well Fen, but some of the things you write make me shudder.

I don't recommend "rising above it."  You should reject it.  AI is perfectly capable of making an argument based on principal, but the current world is not requiring him to do so.  You should reject definitional games, here especially, but also in life, which is much harder, and make him explain his preferred policies and address the concerns.

Well, the thing of it is that some things in life do need updating, and many terms previously were insufficiently specific or relevant.

Needing to "update" is not the same thing as recasting a clear meaning as something different.  Social scientists used to try to create new words that explained their point, but the points were often so ridiculous that people rejected the words and the ideas.  We get a "backlash" against "politically correct," for example.  They gave up on that idea.

Instead they grabbed the idea of re-envisioning words that are incredibly loaded as describing everyday run of the mill concepts and pushing their ideas through that model.  This also coincides with their goal of moving language to match the laws already written.  They can't change the law - cause they can't win the political fight that it would take, but if they change the language they automatically change the law based on that language.  It's been an overt goal for a while.

Justice is blind.  The fact that we've failed to achieve perfect justice is a result of too much consideration of things like race, not too little consideration of things like race.  It will never result in an increase of justice to increase the amount of race we use in determining outcomes for the same conduct.

Quote
To me there is an inevitable conflict between being stuck in your ways and between change just for the sake of change.

That's a fiction.  The "conflict" is not with change for the sake of change.  It's with targeted change for very specific purposes.  The purpose of making impossible to have opposing views - if any position opposed to the one true position is "racist" (no matter what it is) and racism is evil, by definition anyone opposing the enlightened is in fact an evil racist that can be discounted.

The purpose of eliminating the ability to think through an argument.
 
The purpose of encoding political positions into the default moral positions.

The purpose of changing specific concepts in specific ways with highly predictable legal consequences.

The purpose of encoding political positions into law without ever getting a majority agreement.

It's fundamentally anti-democratic to seek not to persuade people but to eliminate their ability to even raise a contrary voice.

Quote
You do need to allow for updates, and for rethinking concepts, but of course the pathological version of this is pushing for changes that are either partisan or else self-serving. But blocking all change just on principle throws the baby with the bathwater.

Except none of that requires the methods they are using.  When methods don't match stated benefits it means the true goals are not what they say.

Quote
This is the fact, already a reality in Canada, that makes the "I don't use the far-left definition" a sticking your head in the ground kind of answer. It doesn't ever stop at being just a theoretical disagreement if you let things go too far, and in the U.S., which is uniquely obsessed with defeating those who disagree, a pathological direction is virtually guaranteed. That fact alone is not the fault of the left, but of those who perpetuate and encourage a system of division.

Those who do this are the left.  It's their only political operation.  They have reasoned arguments, they have empassioned ones.

Find where they actually listen to the other side and make compromises (you can't).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Those who do this are the left.  It's their only political operation.  They have reasoned arguments, they have empassioned ones.

Find where they actually listen to the other side and make compromises (you can't).
That you say this, and sincerely believe it, shows that it isn't just the left.  It's also completely ironic.

The lack of self-awareness would be breathtaking if it wasn't so predictable.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
So you can you show where the left is willing to make compromises and the right is turning them down?  Maybe how we urgently need police reform but the Dems filibustered the Senate bill so that only their own bill (in the House) would be up for discussion?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
No, I get it - you cannot distinguish between racism and policies meant to address the effects of racism, like affirmative action policies.  In fact, my guess is that you feel that affirmative action policies are by definition, not just in practice, racism.

Why don't you try to define the operation of an affirmative action policy that doesn't mention race.  That's literally the reasoning we just saw in the Supreme Court's decision on discrimination based on sex covering discrimination based on sexual preference and transgender status.

In fact, pre-schoolers are taught that two wrongs don't make a right, it takes very sophisticated thinking to understand how punishing people who are not directly responsible for something makes it better. 

But the fact is, we allowed affirmative action over the years to correct racism.  The arguments for it are there and known, make the case that we should allow more affirmative action, why and how it's implemented and what specific issues you see it as necessary to correct.  I doubt you even can.  You keep it vague and imply that disagreement is just unelightened racism.  I can distinguish between the two concepts, but I'm willing bet you actual describe racism when you try to explain affirmative action and why we need it.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Here's a challenge - prove yourself not to be blindly partisan and show us a bunch of examples where Republicans were unwilling to make compromises.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Here's a challenge - prove yourself not to be blindly partisan and show us a bunch of examples where Republicans were unwilling to make compromises.

Lol, answer a challenge with a challenge?  Admitting you can't answer the call?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Here's a challenge - prove yourself not to be blindly partisan and show us a bunch of examples where Republicans were unwilling to make compromises.

Lol, answer a challenge with a challenge?  Admitting you can't answer the call?

You're really missing an opportunity here to take the high road and show how superior Republicans are by their very nature.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Seriati, you claimed not to be a complete partisan, by maintaining that... Your completely, blindly partisan statement was correct

I'm just letting you demonstrate just the smallest bit of balance.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Kas, rather I'm taking the opportunity to demonstrate that you and DonaldD are seemingly not capable of making the arguments you advocate.  Come on, surely it can't be that hard to demonstrate that you thought before you posted?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Kas, rather I'm taking the opportunity to demonstrate that you and DonaldD are seemingly not capable of making the arguments you advocate.  Come on, surely it can't be that hard to demonstrate that you thought before you posted?

Get it right on my name, else I'll try out some I've thought of for you.  Keep shuckin' and jivin' instead of rising to Donald's challenge.  You're the lead parlor lawyer here for the right, so this should be a piece of chiffon cake for you.  But since so far nobody has seen you do what he asked, I doubt many people here think you can.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
I shortened your name from Kasandra to Kas (first time ever), and you drop the D from DonaldD while complaining about it?

I agree I can make an argument.  I think you can't.  You're not changing minds with the endless dodging.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
I shortened your name from Kasandra to Kas (first time ever), and you drop the D from DonaldD while complaining about it?

Inadvertent on my part, and apparently not a concern to him.

I agree I can make an argument.  I think you can't.  You're not changing minds with the endless dodging.

Agree with who?  A little sleight of hand, eh?  Nobody said you can; in fact, that's why popcorn sales suddenly went up.