|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 29 2019 03:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 02:46 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say. It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things. Why though? In the past we needed to be dicks to horses to produce an agricultural surplus. Now we don’t. Technology is the one area where by increasing the size of the pie we can increase the equity of the division without taking food off of anyone’s plate. We’re not doing that because some people seem to be infinitely hungry but there’s no reason to believe that a more equitable division of a pie must necessarily result in less pie for us. The pie is growing exponentially and has been for centuries. It’s a colossal pie now. We can do the math and we don't have the resources to maintain western lifestyles for the rest of the world even if we miraculously put the energy sector out of business with essentially unlimited surplus. I think we can achieve and maintain totally reasonable equity and sustainable lifestyle, what we can't do (at least before shit hits the fan) is make this lifestyle (the ones most would consider basic in the west) sustainable and scalable to the global population. From a practical sense you can't have people with thousands of times the amount of wealth of others without exploitation and undue suffering no matter how big the pie gets Hi there Malthus.
It's very interesting that you bring that up. Obv GH is arguing the opposite of Malthus. But my sense is a lot of people in the West will go full Malthus if the alternative is losing some threshold of comfort.
Edit: that's oversimplified. Actually they'll just do nothing. And then afterward say there's nothing they could have done.
|
|
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 28 2019 10:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 10:17 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:00 IyMoon wrote:On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:
The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times.
And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13. It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ... Like it was straight up made to be racist It would only drive down representation of minorities if they are not citizens. In a similar vein, I would not want a bunch of Americans voting in our Canadian election until such time that they became Canadian citizens. Had we been equally lax in our citizenship for decades, suddenly bringing in Question 13 on a long form census would no doubt dis-proportionally impact Americans rather than Bolivians or Russians, but the policy would nonetheless not be anti-American. It's a sensible census question, even if the guy suggesting it is himself anti-American. You're missing the point that the constitution guarantees non citizens representation (without voting rights, they cannot select their representatives but they do have representatives). What you are proposing is unconstitutional. It may sound reasonable for you but if you're going to argue that the constitution should be changed then you should incorporate an acknowledgement that you understand the question is unconstitutional into your argument.
That doesn't refute my point on whether or not the question is racist. Constitutionality in and of itself doesn't make it racist, unless it is unconstitutional to enact racist policies- but that is the very thing we are still trying to determine. So we are no further ahead.
But, sure if we want to open the question out to other things- no I did not realize that noncitizens were guaranteed the right to vote. Maybe you can help me out here, but I don't know if it is exactly like that- at least in the positive form. As far as I can tell, most of the right limit government rather than specify a class of people to which they apply. This makes a lot of sense- whether one is a visitor or on a work visa, one should still have freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. But it seems strange to me that one of those rights would include that people who do not belong to the particular country may still determine the government of that same country. But is it more the case that there was not a specific law precludingnoncitizens from voting and so the courts have upheld that noncitizens could vote.
Because that seems different than non-citizens having the guaranteed right to vote according to the constitution. More a no-one said you can't not vote. Given that there was no law and that the courts only interpret and do not create law, they really only could say, given there is no prohibition that you cannot, you can. So then, it wouldn't be so crazy to have voting rights the same as pretty much any other western country, which is limited to citizens (again, presumably not a matter of racism, unless they all are too.) But that doesn't seem as entrenched as guaranteed by the constitution- it just hadn't been precluded as of yet. But maybe I'm wrong and I'm know better.
But in any event, whether it's used for non-citizens ability to vote or not, it's still sensible data to appear in a census (like in Canada) and not a matter of racism.
|
On June 29 2019 03:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 03:06 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2019 02:46 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 02:40 Nebuchad wrote:On June 29 2019 02:32 Simberto wrote:I read this: You can acknowledge that the Western world was built on exploitation and human misery without drawing the conclusion that those are the secret ingredient needed if we want it to survive. As "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past, without getting to the conclusion that it needs to be there in the future to survive" Thus my reaction. I think you might have read it as "You can acknowledge that there was exploitation and human misery in the past without the need to feel bad about profiting from it now" I honestly do not know which of the two interpretations Kwark meant to say. It doesn't need to be there in the future to survive in GH's argument. It needs to be there in the future to maintain certain aspects of our lifestyle tho. The idea isn't that it's impossible to not do bad things, the idea is that it's impossible to have what we have and to maintain what we have at the same level without the bad things. Why though? In the past we needed to be dicks to horses to produce an agricultural surplus. Now we don’t. Technology is the one area where by increasing the size of the pie we can increase the equity of the division without taking food off of anyone’s plate. We’re not doing that because some people seem to be infinitely hungry but there’s no reason to believe that a more equitable division of a pie must necessarily result in less pie for us. The pie is growing exponentially and has been for centuries. It’s a colossal pie now. We can do the math and we don't have the resources to maintain western lifestyles for the rest of the world even if we miraculously put the energy sector out of business with essentially unlimited surplus. I think we can achieve and maintain totally reasonable equity and sustainable lifestyle, what we can't do (at least before shit hits the fan) is make this lifestyle (the ones most would consider basic in the west) sustainable and scalable to the global population. From a practical sense you can't have people with thousands of times the amount of wealth of others without exploitation and undue suffering no matter how big the pie gets Hi there Malthus. It's very interesting that you bring that up. Obv GH is arguing the opposite of Malthus. But my sense is a lot of people in the West will go full Malthus if the alternative is losing some threshold of comfort. Edit: that's oversimplified. Actually they'll just do nothing. And then afterward say there's nothing they could have done.
Yup. They'll argue there's nothing more they could/should have done contemporaneously too. Not hard to see it in practically every political topic.
|
On June 29 2019 03:30 JimmiC wrote:
It is a myth that we dont have the resources to maintain the current lifestyle. Infact we have more than enough to even increase the life styles of many.
I don't know too much about the resoursces side so I'll grant you that. Perhaps I shouldn't. Can we maintain it without the exploitation?
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 03:34 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 10:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 10:17 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:00 IyMoon wrote:On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13. It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ... Like it was straight up made to be racist It would only drive down representation of minorities if they are not citizens. In a similar vein, I would not want a bunch of Americans voting in our Canadian election until such time that they became Canadian citizens. Had we been equally lax in our citizenship for decades, suddenly bringing in Question 13 on a long form census would no doubt dis-proportionally impact Americans rather than Bolivians or Russians, but the policy would nonetheless not be anti-American. It's a sensible census question, even if the guy suggesting it is himself anti-American. You're missing the point that the constitution guarantees non citizens representation (without voting rights, they cannot select their representatives but they do have representatives). What you are proposing is unconstitutional. It may sound reasonable for you but if you're going to argue that the constitution should be changed then you should incorporate an acknowledgement that you understand the question is unconstitutional into your argument. That doesn't refute my point on whether or not the question is racist. Constitutionality in and of itself doesn't make it racist, unless it is unconstitutional to enact racist policies- but that is the very thing we are still trying to determine. So we are no further ahead. But, sure if we want to open the question out to other things- no I did not realize that noncitizens were guaranteed the right to vote. Maybe you can help me out here, but I don't know if it is exactly like that- at least in the positive form. As far as I can tell, most of the right limit government rather than specify a class of people to which they apply. This makes a lot of sense- whether one is a visitor or on a work visa, one should still have freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. But it seems strange to me that one of those rights would include that people who do not belong to the particular country may still determine the government of that same country. But is it more the case that there was not a specific law precludingnoncitizens from voting and so the courts have upheld that noncitizens could vote. Because that seems different than non-citizens having the guaranteed right to vote according to the constitution. More a no-one said you can't not vote. Given that there was no law and that the courts only interpret and do not create law, they really only could say, given there is no prohibition that you cannot, you can. So then, it wouldn't be so crazy to have voting rights the same as pretty much any other western country, which is limited to citizens (again, presumably not a matter of racism, unless they all are too.) But that doesn't seem as entrenched as guaranteed by the constitution- it just hadn't been precluded as of yet. But maybe I'm wrong and I'm know better. But in any event, whether it's used for non-citizens ability to vote or not, it's still sensible data to appear in a census (like in Canada) and not a matter of racism.
Read my posts again. Representation, not votes. They’re entitled to have a Congressman, but not to pick him. You’re not understanding the system we’re talking about. In each of my last four posts responding to you I’ve explained that the population (citizen, resident, illegal alien, or slave) is constitutionally guaranteed a representative (without a vote) and to each of them you’ve argued against the idea that non citizens can vote.
Imagine if there was one representative per 10,000 people. The goal of the census is to ensure that you count all the people so you know how many representatives you need and for what area. People, not citizens. So in an area with 2,000 citizens owning 8,000 slaves those 2,000 would have the vote but all 10,000 would get the representative. (I skipped multiplying the 8,000 by 5/3 for this for simplification)
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 28 2019 12:55 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 11:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Yang has gotten NO time. NONE. Fucking criminal. Yang got less than 3 minutes in total out of the whole 2 hour broadcast according to NYT. The people who got the most the most time got 3-4x more speaking time than he did.
This is what I find aggravating about these things. The very format picks winners and losers just based on speaking times allotted. Yes, you can butt in, and yes you can bring the thunder in the few minutes you have. But if have literally less that a quarter of the speaking time of the perceived top contender and a third of half the candidates, it is such an uphill battle. It's terrible.
Can't wait until we have a quarter of the candidates we can possibly have some actual discussions.
|
|
|
On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return.
I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable.
|
On June 29 2019 04:01 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return. I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable.
and have you found a lot of multiculturalism out there that isn’t “western”?
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 04:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 04:01 Doodsmack wrote:On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return. I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable. and have you found a lot of multiculturalism out there that isn’t “western”?
Would the Indian subcontinent qualify? They have a bajillion cultures.
|
On June 29 2019 04:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 04:20 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 04:01 Doodsmack wrote:On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return. I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable. and have you found a lot of multiculturalism out there that isn’t “western”? Would the Indian subcontinent qualify? They have a bajillion cultures.
i don’t know you tell me. is a rigid caste system and millennia of sectarian violence a good kind of multiculturalism?
as a british person you should be the first to point out that the very idea of “India” was forged in the crucible of western colonialism, and that even it wasn’t multicultural enough to keep the hindus and the muslims from killing each other
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 04:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 04:30 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 04:20 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 04:01 Doodsmack wrote:On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return. I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable. and have you found a lot of multiculturalism out there that isn’t “western”? Would the Indian subcontinent qualify? They have a bajillion cultures. i don’t know you tell me. is a rigid caste system and millennia of sectarian violence a good kind of multiculturalism? as a british person you should be the first to point out that the very idea of “India” was forged in the crucible of western colonialism, and that even it wasn’t multicultural enough to keep the hindus and the muslims from killing each other
I don’t think Europeans have much solid ground to stand on in terms of subcontinents that engage in constant ethnic, religious, and class conflict.
Nothing about your response makes me think that they’re not an adequate comparison to the west.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 29 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 03:34 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 10:17 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:00 IyMoon wrote:On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13. It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ... Like it was straight up made to be racist It would only drive down representation of minorities if they are not citizens. In a similar vein, I would not want a bunch of Americans voting in our Canadian election until such time that they became Canadian citizens. Had we been equally lax in our citizenship for decades, suddenly bringing in Question 13 on a long form census would no doubt dis-proportionally impact Americans rather than Bolivians or Russians, but the policy would nonetheless not be anti-American. It's a sensible census question, even if the guy suggesting it is himself anti-American. You're missing the point that the constitution guarantees non citizens representation (without voting rights, they cannot select their representatives but they do have representatives). What you are proposing is unconstitutional. It may sound reasonable for you but if you're going to argue that the constitution should be changed then you should incorporate an acknowledgement that you understand the question is unconstitutional into your argument. That doesn't refute my point on whether or not the question is racist. Constitutionality in and of itself doesn't make it racist, unless it is unconstitutional to enact racist policies- but that is the very thing we are still trying to determine. So we are no further ahead. But, sure if we want to open the question out to other things- no I did not realize that noncitizens were guaranteed the right to vote. Maybe you can help me out here, but I don't know if it is exactly like that- at least in the positive form. As far as I can tell, most of the right limit government rather than specify a class of people to which they apply. This makes a lot of sense- whether one is a visitor or on a work visa, one should still have freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. But it seems strange to me that one of those rights would include that people who do not belong to the particular country may still determine the government of that same country. But is it more the case that there was not a specific law precludingnoncitizens from voting and so the courts have upheld that noncitizens could vote. Because that seems different than non-citizens having the guaranteed right to vote according to the constitution. More a no-one said you can't not vote. Given that there was no law and that the courts only interpret and do not create law, they really only could say, given there is no prohibition that you cannot, you can. So then, it wouldn't be so crazy to have voting rights the same as pretty much any other western country, which is limited to citizens (again, presumably not a matter of racism, unless they all are too.) But that doesn't seem as entrenched as guaranteed by the constitution- it just hadn't been precluded as of yet. But maybe I'm wrong and I'm know better. But in any event, whether it's used for non-citizens ability to vote or not, it's still sensible data to appear in a census (like in Canada) and not a matter of racism. Read my posts again. Representation, not votes. They’re entitled to have a Congressman, but not to pick him. You’re not understanding the system we’re talking about.
Sorry I misread. So, ok. We are talking about reapportionment. So sure, Congress representation is determined by total population. I wouldn't change that and I don't think I ever said I would. It seems then from a little more reading that Hofeller is a partisan hack (I don't see enough to determine racist though- his talk of non-Hispanic whites, I suspect is related to voting tendencies, consistent with is partisanship. I lack information on racial animus based upon that alone.) And so the question was to be asked for wrong reasons (which I allowed before). But it's still a good question. And implementation of redistribution based on census data is separate from gathering what amounts to really basic data. And the gathering of that really basic data- is that really unconstitutional? Or is it just reapportionment without total population? (Which is a separate thing.)
I mean this is really just an effect of kicking the illegal immigration problem for however many decades. If you could ever solve that problem, this one goes away. Still not a racist question, unless it is in any other census question in any other country.
|
On June 29 2019 04:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 04:36 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 04:30 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 04:20 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2019 04:01 Doodsmack wrote:On June 29 2019 03:09 IgnE wrote:
“History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis…”
To which I would add that “the West” is what cannot be ignored, the contingent manifestation of History at this time. There is no other place to go to. No before to which we can return. I dont see any logic here that dictates that multiculturalism is a problem or is not feasible. It very much exists in the cities already. That is, once people are actually put in close proximity, they realize that their hunter-gatherer tribe instincts are not inexorable. and have you found a lot of multiculturalism out there that isn’t “western”? Would the Indian subcontinent qualify? They have a bajillion cultures. i don’t know you tell me. is a rigid caste system and millennia of sectarian violence a good kind of multiculturalism? as a british person you should be the first to point out that the very idea of “India” was forged in the crucible of western colonialism, and that even it wasn’t multicultural enough to keep the hindus and the muslims from killing each other I don’t think Europeans have much solid ground to stand on in terms of subcontinents that engage in constant ethnic, religious, and class conflict. Nothing about your response makes me think that they’re not an adequate comparison to the west.
ok great but we aren’t even talking about the same thing anymore so whatever
|
On June 29 2019 04:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 03:34 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 10:17 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:00 IyMoon wrote:On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13. It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ... Like it was straight up made to be racist It would only drive down representation of minorities if they are not citizens. In a similar vein, I would not want a bunch of Americans voting in our Canadian election until such time that they became Canadian citizens. Had we been equally lax in our citizenship for decades, suddenly bringing in Question 13 on a long form census would no doubt dis-proportionally impact Americans rather than Bolivians or Russians, but the policy would nonetheless not be anti-American. It's a sensible census question, even if the guy suggesting it is himself anti-American. You're missing the point that the constitution guarantees non citizens representation (without voting rights, they cannot select their representatives but they do have representatives). What you are proposing is unconstitutional. It may sound reasonable for you but if you're going to argue that the constitution should be changed then you should incorporate an acknowledgement that you understand the question is unconstitutional into your argument. That doesn't refute my point on whether or not the question is racist. Constitutionality in and of itself doesn't make it racist, unless it is unconstitutional to enact racist policies- but that is the very thing we are still trying to determine. So we are no further ahead. But, sure if we want to open the question out to other things- no I did not realize that noncitizens were guaranteed the right to vote. Maybe you can help me out here, but I don't know if it is exactly like that- at least in the positive form. As far as I can tell, most of the right limit government rather than specify a class of people to which they apply. This makes a lot of sense- whether one is a visitor or on a work visa, one should still have freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. But it seems strange to me that one of those rights would include that people who do not belong to the particular country may still determine the government of that same country. But is it more the case that there was not a specific law precludingnoncitizens from voting and so the courts have upheld that noncitizens could vote. Because that seems different than non-citizens having the guaranteed right to vote according to the constitution. More a no-one said you can't not vote. Given that there was no law and that the courts only interpret and do not create law, they really only could say, given there is no prohibition that you cannot, you can. So then, it wouldn't be so crazy to have voting rights the same as pretty much any other western country, which is limited to citizens (again, presumably not a matter of racism, unless they all are too.) But that doesn't seem as entrenched as guaranteed by the constitution- it just hadn't been precluded as of yet. But maybe I'm wrong and I'm know better. But in any event, whether it's used for non-citizens ability to vote or not, it's still sensible data to appear in a census (like in Canada) and not a matter of racism. Read my posts again. Representation, not votes. They’re entitled to have a Congressman, but not to pick him. You’re not understanding the system we’re talking about. Sorry I misread. So, ok. We are talking about reapportionment. So sure, Congress representation is determined by total population. I wouldn't change that and I don't think I ever said I would. It seems then from a little more reading that Hofeller is a partisan hack (I don't see enough to determine racist though- his talk of non-Hispanic whites, I suspect is related to voting tendencies, consistent with is partisanship. I lack information on racial animus based upon that alone.) And so the question was to be asked for wrong reasons (which I allowed before). But it's still a good question. And implementation of redistribution based on census data is separate from gathering what amounts to really basic data. And the gathering of that really basic data- is that really unconstitutional? Or is it just reapportionment without total population? (Which is a separate thing.) I mean this is really just an effect of kicking the illegal immigration problem for however many decades. If you could ever solve that problem, this one goes away. Still not a racist question, unless it is in any other census question in any other country.
It is the reasoning for the question period, that is drawing this discussion. There is simply no need for it.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 29 2019 04:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2019 03:34 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:24 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 10:17 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 10:00 IyMoon wrote:On June 28 2019 09:58 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 02:11 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Poll taxes and civil voting exams aren’t “inherently racist” either, but what does that acknowledgement really mean? It means just because you find a point of commonality, doesn't mean B, therefore A. It's not a true. On a similar, vein I just watched a video where one fellow was yelling at a pro-lifer "How does it feel to believe the same thing as the Taliban? You agree them!" The implied line of argumentation (fallacy) is the same- happen to agree on one point, therefore you are the Taliban. On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. It's not even just technically possible. Asking whether one is a citizen or not on a census is a factual question, completely unconnected to ethnicity. It's not racist, unless the long form census in Canada is also racist. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/statistical-programs/document/3901_D18_T1_V1Question 13. It was specifically stated that it was being put on there to drive down representation from minorities ... Like it was straight up made to be racist It would only drive down representation of minorities if they are not citizens. In a similar vein, I would not want a bunch of Americans voting in our Canadian election until such time that they became Canadian citizens. Had we been equally lax in our citizenship for decades, suddenly bringing in Question 13 on a long form census would no doubt dis-proportionally impact Americans rather than Bolivians or Russians, but the policy would nonetheless not be anti-American. It's a sensible census question, even if the guy suggesting it is himself anti-American. You're missing the point that the constitution guarantees non citizens representation (without voting rights, they cannot select their representatives but they do have representatives). What you are proposing is unconstitutional. It may sound reasonable for you but if you're going to argue that the constitution should be changed then you should incorporate an acknowledgement that you understand the question is unconstitutional into your argument. That doesn't refute my point on whether or not the question is racist. Constitutionality in and of itself doesn't make it racist, unless it is unconstitutional to enact racist policies- but that is the very thing we are still trying to determine. So we are no further ahead. But, sure if we want to open the question out to other things- no I did not realize that noncitizens were guaranteed the right to vote. Maybe you can help me out here, but I don't know if it is exactly like that- at least in the positive form. As far as I can tell, most of the right limit government rather than specify a class of people to which they apply. This makes a lot of sense- whether one is a visitor or on a work visa, one should still have freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. But it seems strange to me that one of those rights would include that people who do not belong to the particular country may still determine the government of that same country. But is it more the case that there was not a specific law precludingnoncitizens from voting and so the courts have upheld that noncitizens could vote. Because that seems different than non-citizens having the guaranteed right to vote according to the constitution. More a no-one said you can't not vote. Given that there was no law and that the courts only interpret and do not create law, they really only could say, given there is no prohibition that you cannot, you can. So then, it wouldn't be so crazy to have voting rights the same as pretty much any other western country, which is limited to citizens (again, presumably not a matter of racism, unless they all are too.) But that doesn't seem as entrenched as guaranteed by the constitution- it just hadn't been precluded as of yet. But maybe I'm wrong and I'm know better. But in any event, whether it's used for non-citizens ability to vote or not, it's still sensible data to appear in a census (like in Canada) and not a matter of racism. Read my posts again. Representation, not votes. They’re entitled to have a Congressman, but not to pick him. You’re not understanding the system we’re talking about. Sorry I misread. So, ok. We are talking about reapportionment. So sure, Congress representation is determined by total population. I wouldn't change that and I don't think I ever said I would. It seems then from a little more reading that Hofeller is a partisan hack (I don't see enough to determine racist though- his talk of non-Hispanic whites, I suspect is related to voting tendencies, consistent with is partisanship. I lack information on racial animus based upon that alone.) And so the question was to be asked for wrong reasons (which I allowed before). But it's still a good question. And implementation of redistribution based on census data is separate from gathering what amounts to really basic data. And the gathering of that really basic data- is that really unconstitutional? Or is it just reapportionment without total population? (Which is a separate thing.) I mean this is really just an effect of kicking the illegal immigration problem for however many decades. If you could ever solve that problem, this one goes away. Still not a racist question, unless it is in any other census question in any other country.
The intent is to strip the non-citizen population of their constitutional right to a representative. The non-citizen population is almost entirely non-white. Therefore the intent is to strip representation from a group almost entirely non-white, and therefore overrepresent the white population.
It’s about as racist as shouting nigger at black people, but more harmful and less defensible. A census question that requires individuals to incriminate themselves to participate is designed solely to force the undesirables to make themselves, and their needs, invisible.
Even (sorry) Danglars proposed a compromise to try to ensure that the non-citizen response rate to the census didn’t go down due to the inclusion of the question in acknowledgment of the obvious issue.
If you’re approaching this purely from a position of trying to get good data from the census then the primary concern has to be response rate representativeness. I’d much rather be able to ask a representative population 1 question than a non representative population 10 questions because at least then I’d know the answer to 1 question, whereas the non representative population’s data must be discarded as useless. If you add questions that slew response rate to a certain group you get less information, not more. All reasonable people know this and therefore the question is whether the goal is to get the good data the constitution tells them they need to get, or just to make undesirables forfeit their representation.
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
Hell, we could reasonably want to know the population of paedophiles and their demographics but I wouldn’t recommend putting it on the census form just because we’d like to know it. We’d just fuck the census up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
660
EPT
