|
|
On October 29 2012 04:59 Souma wrote: The good ol' "everything will be fine if we just leave it alone" argument.
This is the one-size-fits-all argument for liberalism. It's easy. Just tattoo it on your wrist and you have an answer for everything.
|
On October 29 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 04:55 sam!zdat wrote: I'm no Dem apologist, but ignoring structural inequality is not the way to produce a "colorblind society." You have to actually produce a "colorblind society" before you can have one. I don't see the GOP thinking much about that issue... See, I disagree on this "chicken and the egg" problem. I don't think that the structural inequalities that you reference can be eliminated until there's a colorblind society.
It's a false dichotomy. you have to solve both issues together. You can never solve problems like this by solving one half of them. You always have to solve the whole system all at once.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 04:55 sam!zdat wrote: I'm no Dem apologist, but ignoring structural inequality is not the way to produce a "colorblind society." You have to actually produce a "colorblind society" before you can have one. I don't see the GOP thinking much about that issue... See, I disagree on this "chicken and the egg" problem. I don't think that the structural inequalities that you reference can be eliminated until there's a colorblind society. you don't have a chicken and egg problem here, because clearly the history of slavery, segregation, marginalization etc etc were not products of liberal policies of affirmative action etc. ja?
existing inequalities perpetuate. formal equality is no solution at all. your INABILITY to recognize real existing conditions of inequality along racial lines is the only problem here.
|
On October 29 2012 05:02 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 29 2012 04:55 sam!zdat wrote: I'm no Dem apologist, but ignoring structural inequality is not the way to produce a "colorblind society." You have to actually produce a "colorblind society" before you can have one. I don't see the GOP thinking much about that issue... See, I disagree on this "chicken and the egg" problem. I don't think that the structural inequalities that you reference can be eliminated until there's a colorblind society. It's a false dichotomy. you have to solve both issues together. You can never solve problems like this by solving one half of them. You always have to solve the whole system all at once. It's not a false dichotomy if one accepts the premise that "race consciousness" (ie not being colorblind) is the cause of the structural inequality.
|
On October 29 2012 05:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:02 sam!zdat wrote:On October 29 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 29 2012 04:55 sam!zdat wrote: I'm no Dem apologist, but ignoring structural inequality is not the way to produce a "colorblind society." You have to actually produce a "colorblind society" before you can have one. I don't see the GOP thinking much about that issue... See, I disagree on this "chicken and the egg" problem. I don't think that the structural inequalities that you reference can be eliminated until there's a colorblind society. It's a false dichotomy. you have to solve both issues together. You can never solve problems like this by solving one half of them. You always have to solve the whole system all at once. It's not a false dichotomy if one accepts the premise that "race consciousness" (ie not being colorblind) is the cause of the structural inequality.
that's a stupid premise
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
at least it's a superior premise than the claim that honorable, republican lincoln fought the liberal, racist democrats to free slaves from being considered unequal, when they were in fact just fine.
i'm sorry, they were in fact doing better than their brethrens back home.
|
If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race?
|
On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote:I would argue the premise of that article is incorrect. The recent Wisconsin Governor election is living proof. Huge turnout, huge Republican win (in a Democratic state). Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote.
I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote: If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race?
I suppose if you pretend hard enough that everything is okay, everything really will be okay. What is reality, really?
|
On October 29 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote: If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race? What is reality, really?
It's all relative, man.
(now do you see why postmodernism is the ideology of late capitalism?)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote:I would argue the premise of that article is incorrect. The recent Wisconsin Governor election is living proof. Huge turnout, huge Republican win (in a Democratic state). Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. then why did republicans wait until the election is close before raising the issue? lol
|
On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote:I would argue the premise of that article is incorrect. The recent Wisconsin Governor election is living proof. Huge turnout, huge Republican win (in a Democratic state). Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor.
I don't understand why people use anecdotes when there are statistics in this regard. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote: If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race? What is reality, really? It's all relative, man. (now do you see why postmodernism is the ideology of late capitalism?)
Oh God don't tell me I'm starting to sound like you... I may have to stay away from this thread for a bit. :p
|
On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote:I would argue the premise of that article is incorrect. The recent Wisconsin Governor election is living proof. Huge turnout, huge Republican win (in a Democratic state). Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states.
|
On October 29 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote: If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race? What more can you ask for than no one giving a shit about race? Isn't that the ultimate goal? It should be, but I know it is not for democrats and liberals. They want to see equality of economic outcomes among races. I don't this goal as being objectionable, but I do object to how they want to get us there. In short, they ignore the inherent problems within the specific racial communities that are the real causes of their economic problems.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 29 2012 05:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote: If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race? What more can you ask for than no one giving a shit about race? Isn't that the ultimate goal? It should be, but I know it is not for democrats and liberals. They want to see equality of economic outcomes among races. I don't this goal as being objectionable, but I do object to how they want to get us there. In short, they ignore the inherent problems within the specific racial communities that are the real causes of their economic problems. not giving a shit about race is a liberal position. identity theorists like communitarian stuff better. recognizing and addressing real social problems with racial origins or defined impact is an entirely different issue. if you are proposing that, in order to solve racial issues once and for all so no one should raise it as an issue, we are to turn 10% of gdp as reparation for past racial sins, then i'd applaud your bravery.
let's see these proposals lol
|
This thread is just pages away from returning to: "Let's analyze racial inequality in terms of guesses about the evolutionary selective pressure of American slavery!"
|
On October 29 2012 05:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote:I would argue the premise of that article is incorrect. The recent Wisconsin Governor election is living proof. Huge turnout, huge Republican win (in a Democratic state). Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. I don't understand why people use anecdotes when there are statistics in this regard. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/
An unwillingness to get an id != an inability to get an id.
Your statistics talk about voter turnout. They do not talk about inability to get an id. These are two separate issues that may have a causation link. But they are still different things.
|
On October 29 2012 05:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:17 DoubleReed wrote: If it's a colorblind society, how would you know if you solved racial issues?
Has 'not talking about it will make it go away' ever worked for any issue ever? What makes you think it would work for race? What more can you ask for than no one giving a shit about race? Isn't that the ultimate goal? It should be, but I know it is not for democrats and liberals. They want to see equality of economic outcomes among races. I don't this goal as being objectionable, but I do object to how they want to get us there. In short, they ignore the inherent problems within the specific racial communities that are the real causes of their economic problems.
Not giving a shit about race while black people are treated as inferiors and have less power and less wealth and are still actively discriminated against is not a laudable goal, it is a white supremacist goal. You're really going to say that the inherent problems within specific racial communities are the real causes of their economic problems? Since when did Teamliquid become Stormfront?
|
On October 29 2012 05:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 05:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 04:30 Lmui wrote:On October 29 2012 03:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 29 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On October 29 2012 03:18 BluePanther wrote:I would argue the premise of that article is incorrect. The recent Wisconsin Governor election is living proof. Huge turnout, huge Republican win (in a Democratic state). Wisconsin is and always has been an outlier insofar as state political dynamics are concerned, going all the way back to the first utterance of "the Wisconsin Idea" in 1904. The mere fact that Wisconsin produced the likes of Russ Feingold, Joe McCarthy, and Paul Ryan is enough to suggest that the state is truly a unique "laboratory for democracy". Also a Wisconsin idea data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" That may be, but the blanket statement of "more turnout==more Democratic votes" is erroneous imo. The turnout referred to in the article is the demographic that votes largely democrat. The poor and minorities, generally low income voters that have traditionally been democrat leaning. They're the ones who're being hit hardest because they can least afford to pay to get ID to vote. I also don't understand the ID issue. I worked in a homeless shelter for a while and we provided IDs free of charge. And I'm talking the poorest of the poor. It's a non-factor. Give state institutions time and funding to cover free ID provision and I doubt anyone would have a problem; like oneofthem said, the timing is the biggest issue. Getting a free government issued ID is simply impossible in many states.
In my state they passed the law quite a long time ago... The Dems keep stalling it in the courts, and now complain when the ruling is about to be issued before the election, pushing it off again. It's not the Republicans pushing it right before the election, it's the Democrats stalling it out and then screaming 'victim' when it is unfavorable to them.
|
|
|
|