US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4107

On December 17 2023 11:38 BlackJack wrote:


Actually it did. The overt and acceptable levels of racism against white people to the point of “hey everybody let’s bring back segregation” didn’t happen until very recently. That’s well after we made tremendous progress in diversity without resorting to overt racism. Was it perfect? No, of course not. You’re just deciding that the progress that was made wasn’t good enough so instead we’re going to piss on MLK’s dream and go back to judging people based on the color of their skin as if that will lead to more racial harmony.

On December 17 2023 13:08 Sermokala wrote:
Yeah its a topic that is hard for people who like to avoid context and nuance to understand and we get that.



Yeah there is cases where its justified. If you have an inefficient market due to existsting discrimination within that market, its justified to correct the inefficiencies. Race is no different to gender age position that you play education or experience, what matters to normal people is the intent and context. Why does the NCAA not allow players who've been paid to be a professional player play college sports? How does anyone hire for a position or decide who to promote or not to promote. who gets a bank loan and who doesn't get a bank loan? What Restaurant should I go to and what should I eat when I get there? What fruit should I eat this week? How does a sports team figure out who to hire to play sportgame. These are all situations where discrimination happens.

It comes off that its not that you take offence to discrimination based on race but you are questioning why people are okay with it in this case. When Kwark says "yeah you don't get it its okay" its because you're not trying to argue if its okay or not you're just trying to score a gotcha that it exists and happens. I get the feeling that next we're going to have to talk about if racism has ever existed and if it has an effect on whats going on today, and thats just boring and werid that it needs to be talked about.

On December 17 2023 12:38 Razyda wrote:


This is brilliant, I really enjoy it and thank you for the answer.
I never said that you were throwing insults (far as I am concerned there isn't single thing in the world that anyone understands fully, let alone me). I also never thought you try to defend Kwark - I quoted his post only as an explanation why I consider phrases mentioned earlier as muddying the water (so to speak). Apologies if that was impression you got from my post - it was not my intention. My point was that you were trying to defend something undefendable by suggesting that we cant understand it fully, which is not the case here.
Now to stay on topic:
Do you think events Black Jack mentioned were discriminatory? (please note it is not a question if discrimination was justified)
Do you think discrimination based on race is justified?
If it is what warrants justification?

In all honesty I dont think there is a way to honestly answer this questions, without either agreeing that events were discriminatory, or that discrimination based on race is in some cases justified.

On December 17 2023 22:29 micronesia wrote:

Most things involve discrimination in the most general sense. Yes, the news item involving the holiday party with the intent to invite only persons of color politicians was discriminating against people. If the organizers had invited white politicians too, that would still be discriminating in a million ways (why wasn't I invited, for example? New York City politicians? Boston Teachers?), just not that one particular way. I don't think your first question is specific enough.

The second question is getting warmer. Is discrimination based on race justified? My response is that this question has neither a yes or no answer. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It's easy to say "we should never discriminate based on race," but that's actually entirely implausible. Even simple things like identifying black politicians as 'black' (just the word black) are discriminating. Why didn't I call that white-as-heck politician black? I discriminated against non-black politicians when choosing to use the word black to refer only to the black politicians. Why didn't I include Asian-American politicians in my example?

I think most people would agree in a simple example like that, it's okay to "discriminate based on race," and that's not really what we mean by discriminating against white politicians or politicians of color or anyone else. Unfortunately, what that means though is that we can't even have a good discussion about whether or not discrimination based on race is acceptable because we haven't established what individual examples of discrimination would or wouldn't be included in the relevant definition/connotations for "discrimination based on race."

If the City of Boston put out a new law which said "only persons of color may be politicians in Boston anymore" that would be unacceptable. If the City of Boston political bodies coordinated several holiday parties, and one of them was only for inviting certain politicians based on race (like the news item), I agree the optics aren't good for a lot of people, but in many cases that act is entirely acceptable. In a different city if the situation was handled differently perhaps the race-based discrimination would be unacceptable. Trying to boil this down to "always ok" or "never okay" is a mistake, and seemingly a common one, which is why I refer to the fact that this issue is a bit more complicated than it first seems.

edit: your third question also alludes to this

On December 17 2023 22:47 BlackJack wrote:


So would it be fair to assume, that given their exists sufficient other parties and opportunities for everyone that you would also be okay if the white council members carved out one party for themselves that the rest of the board wasn’t invited to?

On December 17 2023 22:49 micronesia wrote:

No. Not today. Maybe tomorrow.

On December 17 2023 21:19 BlackJack wrote:
Just to be clear, I’m firmly on the side that we should not discriminate against people based on how much melanin they happened to be born with.

On December 17 2023 23:09 micronesia wrote:
One of the main reasons is related to what you said earlier:



The people who want to host this party for the persons of color are discriminated against based on how much melanin they happened to be born with every day, so it's kinda unfair to say "we shouldn't let you discriminate based on skin tone, never mind the fact that you are constantly the victim of it and some of us are not."

If we weren't talking about Boston, or we were talking about a future time where circumstances in Boston change, then the answer to the question will also potentially change. The "foreigners in Japan" example discussed earlier is probably a good one.

On December 17 2023 14:22 Razyda wrote:


Bolded 1: disagree

Italic1: that seems terrifyingly close to something what slave trader would say
Bolded 2: not true some of those are choice, some are not.
Italic 2: honestly WTF it has to do with anything????
Bolded 3: they pick the best one?? (again look Italic2 )
Italic 3: this is half way correct - I do take offence to discrimination, but i do question why people are ok with it in some cases.
Bolded 4: I am not - I am arguing whether it was racial discrimination, or not.
Italic 4: you clearly misunderstood. On this forum it is impossible for me to "score a gotcha" and anyway I dont care about it. Did you ever wondered why I am posting here rather than on other forums? Clearly most people here disagree with me. Thing is I dont believe in opinions of people who agree on everything, I am interested in opinions of people who have different view than mine, that lets me see arguments from their side and understand their view (sadly I often fail at both - that is however my concern not yours)
Bolded 5: one of the more documented things in the history and recent times - comparing to Micronesia posts it feels like you not even trying, or arent capable of doing so...
Italic 5: my entire point is that whether examples posted by Black Jack are racist is irrelevant to the fact if they are justified or not.

On December 17 2023 21:19 BlackJack wrote:


Just to be clear, I’m firmly on the side that we should not discriminate against people based on how much melanin they happened to be born with.

Also think it’s worth mentioning that the California proposition to repeal the law against discrimination was soundly defeated 57-43 despite having the support of basically every Democrat politician in the state and having a war chest of $25 million vs only $1.7 million for the “no” vote. Racial discrimination and segregating spaces on the basis of race is not a winning issue and it hasn’t been since the 1960’s.

On December 18 2023 00:44 oBlade wrote:
None of the people at that party are discriminated against, certainly not in their "daily life" as being literally elected to their municipal and other governments. These are some of the most powerful people in their circles. That they are some kind of fragile victims is not a reason to do this or else the party would be flooded by probably half the city of Boston which would be seen in this framework as equally or presumably more discriminated against due to being ordinary citizens.

This is a club of people including a literal drug trafficker who is now a diversity consultant, a mayor who crashed a police car with sirens using it as her personal taxi, and a sheriff who went around telling people to take signs for his opponent down. And by the way lawyers, Ivy League graduates, masters' degrees holders... and oh yeah they're still people who won elections. Do you know how absurd the discrimination take is in this context? Imagine if you went on Facebook and literally over 50% of your city "liked" you and then someone printed that you were a victim of discrimination.

This is a club of people that none of us are invited to no matter our melanin count, and rest assured they're not there out of the goodness of their hearts or for our or probably Boston's best interests.

Making racism a tradition doesn't serve to justify it, either.

They are advancing their own bullshit careers and networking as they see fit. Any attempt to elevate this to something nobler is naivete or gaslighting. Which, by the way, fair play, you're allowed to network with who you please, including co-racists. But hopefully as a society we continue to network away from racists despite progressive speedbumps like this.

We have freedom of association but we also have discretion in most corners of polite society. That's why these theorycrafted white only parties are so hard to pinpoint - they're that far removed from anyone who has any sense of decency. This by the way stopped being a "private" party when it was on government emails with government titles and is held inside a national landmark and is called "Electeds."

On December 18 2023 00:23 micronesia wrote:
I don't think you even realize that you are saying (or implying) that being mistreated throughout your day/month/year by other people in your city (whether conscious or unconscious on the offender's part) is equivalent to hosting an extra holiday party for people of shared race and therefore life experience.

You want me to stop treating you like crap around town even though you won't invite me to your supplemental holiday party!? How hypocritical can you be?

On December 18 2023 04:20 micronesia wrote:
1) No, I was not accusing the white council members of anything
2) You seem to be unaware of most of the ways that people are inappropriately discriminated against on account of their race... that may be why you think my argument, while appropriate in other times, is somehow not applicable right now. It doesn't need to be overt like "denied a table at a restaurant" or "getting called racial slurs to her face" to happen thousands of times a day. Being blind to is doesn't mean it didn't happen.