Identity Politics -- NOT just US election [Archive]

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 01:46

I suppose this is the best place for this. There's been a lot of discussion in the other thread regarding the role of racism and sexism in the Democrat primaries. I went through CNN's exit polls to see just how it bears out.

I counted any state in which gender or race was important to 10% or more of the voters. The first disappointment was the fact that this basically means that I counted every state in which the questions were asked. How depressing is that?

Anyways, here's the results:

No polls:
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Nebraska
Washington
Maine
D.C.
Hawaii
Wyoming

Not asked:
Iowa
New Hampshire
Michigan
Nevada
South Carolina
Florida
Maryland
Virginia

Sexist for Clinton:
Overwhelmingly so (60% or more)
Arizona - 23% (62% Clinton)
Arkansas - 19% (71% Clinton)
California - 23% (70% Clinton)
Connecticut - 21% (68% Clinton)
Massachusetts - 20% (76% Clinton)
New Jersey - 20% (72% Clinton)
New Mexico - 20% (82% Clinton)
New York - 25% (81% Clinton)
Utah - 13% (69% Clinton)
Wisconsin - 15% (63% Clinton)
Ohio - 17% (60% Clinton)
Rhode Island - 21% (75% Clinton)
Texas - 23% (60% Clinton)
Vermont - 17% (67% Clinton)
Pennsylvania - 20% (72% Clinton)
West Virginia - 18% (75% Clinton)
Kentucky - 16% (79% Clinton)
Puerto Rico - 59% (71% Clinton)

Less than 60%
Delaware - 18% (47% Clinton)
Missouri - 18% (53% Clinton)
Oklahoma - 18% (56% Clinton)
Tennessee - 22% (59% Clinton)
Indiana - 16% (59% Clinton)
Oregon - 17% (55% Clinton)

That's 24 states sexist for Clinton, 18 of them with the sexist votes going to her by 60% or more.

Sexist for Obama:
Overwhelmingly so
Wyoming - 28% (69% Obama)

Less than 60%
Alabama - 28% (56% Obama)
Georgia - 18% (49% Obama)
Illinois - 23% (56% Obama)
Louisiana - 24% (54% Obama)
North Carolina - 21% (54% Obama)

That's 6 states total sexist for Obama, only 1 by more than 60%.

Racist for Clinton:
Overwhelmingly so
Arkansas - 19% (68% Clinton)
California - 17% (61% Clinton)
Oklahoma - 20% (64% Clinton)
Rhode Island - 18% (65% Clinton)
Kentucky - 21% (81% Clinton)
Puerto Rico - 31% (63% Clinton)
West Virginia - 22% (82% Clinton)

Less than 60%
Arizona - 14% (56% Clinton)
Massachusetts - 16% (51% Clinton)
New Mexico - 14% (59% Clinton)
New York - 18% (56% Clinton)
Tennessee - 21% (52% Clinton)
Ohio - 20% (59% Clinton)
Texas - 19% (52% Clinton)
Pennsylvania - 19% (59% Clinton)
Indiana - 16% (53% Clinton)

That's 16 states racist for Clinton, 8 by more than 60%. 2 of those by over 80%.

Racist for Obama:
Overwhelmingly so
Alabama - 29% (62% Obama)
Georgia - 21% (72% Obama)
Illinois - 23% (72% Obama)
North Carolina - 18% (64% Obama)
Wyoming - 31% (62% Obama)

Less than 60%
Connecticut - 15% (56% Obama)
Delaware - 19% (59% Obama)
Missouri - 19% (50% Obama)
New Jersey - 19% (49% Obama)
Louisiana - 25% (53% Obama)
Wisconsin - 13% (50% Obama)
Vermont - 13% (58% Obama)
Oregon - 10% (53% Obama)

That's 13 states racist for Obama, 5 by over 60%. None over 80%.

Ashmoria

02-06-2008, 01:50

Kamsaki-Myu

02-06-2008, 02:38

I suppose this is the best place for this. There's been a lot of discussion in the other thread regarding the role of racism and sexism in the Democrat primaries. I went through CNN's exit polls to see just how it bears out.
Can I ask exactly what questions were asked of the participants? I'm not quite convinced that the correlation between "what is an issue" and "who I'm voting for" is quite as obvious as seems to be the assumption. You might, for instance, acknowedge that gender and/or race is an important part of the contest but still think that a progressive/aggressive foreign policy advocate is your personal reason for voting one way or the other.

Jocabia

02-06-2008, 02:56

Kamsaki-Myu

02-06-2008, 12:47

Um, if you think gender or race is important, it doesn't matter what other reasons you use. Would it be okay with you if you and I went to a restaurant and I asked for the best white waitress there?
Well, it's not exactly my business, but I would probably think rather poorly of you.

But that's not my point. You might walk in to a restaurant, audibly note "God, why are all the waitresses white blondes? Oh, except for that one. And she's pretty cute too!" and then ask for a waitress by name that you'd been recommended by a friend. The fact that I've acknowledged a racial issue exists in the choice of waitress, and even expressed a particular inclination towards what I would choose, all other things being equal, doesn't mean that that's going to motivate the decision that I, personally, take.

CanuckHeaven

02-06-2008, 16:11

Kamsaki-Myu

02-06-2008, 16:46

While racism and sexism obviously exists in the US, because a voter chose a candidate due to race or gender doesn't necessarily make them sexist or racist.
If the reason for their vote is the sex or race of the candidate, then it probably does mean that. What I'm not sure about (because I can't find the actual question being asked) is whether these figures are actually talking about the voters' personal reasons for voting the way they do or whether they're simply talking about what issues the voters think "are important" - a much more general statement.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 17:52

You have slapped labels on the question that was asked in the exit polling. I really don't believe that "racist" or "sexist" are appropriate labels.

While racism and sexism obviously exists in the US, because a voter chose a candidate due to race or gender doesn't necessarily make them sexist or racist.

i'm actually going to have to go with ch on this one. there is a difference between deciding to support someone of a group that has been disproportionately excluded from power on the basis of either strongly identifying with that group or on the basis of "it's about time", etc, vs. supporting someone because you refuse to support someone else from those excluded groups.

it really can't be argued that african americans won't vote for white people, or that women won't vote for men. and while turnout is high, it isn't that high such that it could bring out that many black supremacists and misandrists (if there are that many of them, we're in even bigger trouble than we think).

but anyone who voted for clinton because she is white is a fucking racist, and anyone who voted for obama because he has a penis is a sexist (or at least has internalized sexist/racist ideas)

Jocabia

02-06-2008, 18:12

i'm actually going to have to go with ch on this one. there is a difference between deciding to support someone of a group that has been disproportionately excluded from power on the basis of either strongly identifying with that group or on the basis of "it's about time", etc, vs. supporting someone because you refuse to support someone else from those excluded groups.

it really can't be argued that african americans won't vote for white people, or that women won't vote for men. and while turnout is high, it isn't that high such that it could bring out that many black supremacists and misandrists (if there are that many of them, we're in even bigger trouble than we think).

but anyone who voted for clinton because she is white is a fucking racist, and anyone who voted for obama because he has a penis is a sexist (or at least has internalized sexist/racist ideas)

Interesting. So anyone who voted for Clinton because she's white (of which a significant percentage of people admitted to doing) but people who voted for Obama because he's black aren't? And people who vote for Obama because he has a penis are sexist but people who vote for Clinton because she has a vagina aren't? Interesting view of equality. Thank God it's not shared across the board.

Jocabia

02-06-2008, 18:15

Well, it's not exactly my business, but I would probably think rather poorly of you.

But that's not my point. You might walk in to a restaurant, audibly note "God, why are all the waitresses white blondes? Oh, except for that one. And she's pretty cute too!" and then ask for a waitress by name that you'd been recommended by a friend. The fact that I've acknowledged a racial issue exists in the choice of waitress, and even expressed a particular inclination towards what I would choose, all other things being equal, doesn't mean that that's going to motivate the decision that I, personally, take.

That isn't what they said. They said that the race and sex of the server was a factor (overall preferring white to black and female to male). When I walk into a restaurant all things are equal. I know nothing else about the server other than these shallow qualities and you admit you'd think rather poorly of me for asking for a white server or a female server. And you should, because it would make me both a sexist and a racist.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 18:28

Interesting. So anyone who voted for Clinton because she's white (of which a significant percentage of people admitted to doing) but people who voted for Obama because he's black aren't? And people who vote for Obama because he has a penis are sexist but people who vote for Clinton because she has a vagina aren't?

yes.

black people vote for white people all the time. women vote for men all the time. they do not object in principle to white men holding power. a racist or sexist would.

identity politics is not racism. identity politics is not sexism. full stop.

Jocabia

02-06-2008, 19:00

yes.

black people vote for white people all the time. women vote for men all the time. they do not object in principle to white men holding power. a racist or sexist would.

identity politics is not racism. identity politics is not sexism. full stop.

Yes, it is. When you choose people by gender, you are a sexist. Full stop. When you choose people by race, you are a racist. Full stop.

So we'll just keep having white male CEOs because by and large it's white males deciding that. We'll just keep having white Presidents. Because, hey, identity politics is not racism. Sucks when you're the minority, though.

We're not talking about affirmative action, because in affirmative action you are unable to interview until you can find a relevant difference. Here we have a full year to interview candidates. Relevant differences are readily available. If you stopped at skin color and gender, it's because that was enough for you.

In addition, the significant variance between the overall vote and that of sexists occurred when Clinton began pandering to sexists. You can point to the moment it swung and the difference in her narrative and which came first. You can do similar to the moment she began pandering to racists. You can see the swing.

Aardweasels

02-06-2008, 19:22

yes.

black people vote for white people all the time. women vote for men all the time. they do not object in principle to white men holding power. a racist or sexist would.

identity politics is not racism. identity politics is not sexism. full stop.

So all the black people who are voting for the first time because they can vote for a black man who might win aren't racist?

Racism cuts both ways. If someone is racist when they vote for a white person because they're white, then a person who votes for a black person because they're black is just as equally racist. Excusing the latter because it's not as visibly public, or because the Man has been oppressing them for so many years just perpetuates the issue.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 19:26

Yes, it is. When you choose people by gender, you are a sexist. Full stop. When you choose people by race, you are a racist. Full stop.

your conceptions of racism and sexism are naive and self-defeating - they don't offer a path from where we are to where you would like to be.

So we'll just keep having white male CEOs because by and large it's white males deciding that. We'll just keep having white Presidents. Because, hey, identity politics is not racism.

and that ain't identity politics.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 19:32

So all the black people who are voting for the first time because they can vote for a black man who might win aren't racist?

are you sure they aren't voting because for the first time they feel that someone who intimately understands their hopes and concerns - which in this country are very much tied up to skin color - looks like he has a good chance of getting it?

why didn't all of these black separatists come out and vote in previous elections? based on the numbers, they should have always been able to field a 'top 3' candidate.

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 20:14

Can I ask exactly what questions were asked of the participants? I'm not quite convinced that the correlation between "what is an issue" and "who I'm voting for" is quite as obvious as seems to be the assumption. You might, for instance, acknowedge that gender and/or race is an important part of the contest but still think that a progressive/aggressive foreign policy advocate is your personal reason for voting one way or the other.

It was asked two different ways.

1) Gender of candidate was....
- Most important
- One of several
- Not important

2) Was gender of candidate important to you?
- Yes
- No

In each case, the number of people with each answer who voted for each candidate was counted.

(The same wording was used with race)

They weren't asked if gender or race was somehow important. They were asked if they personally found it to be important.

You have slapped labels on the question that was asked in the exit polling. I really don't believe that "racist" or "sexist" are appropriate labels.

While racism and sexism obviously exists in the US, because a voter chose a candidate due to race or gender doesn't necessarily make them sexist or racist.

It may not make them sexist or racist, but it does mean that they voted in a sexist or racist manner. And that fact goes a long way towards providing evidence that they are, in fact, sexist or racist.

Choosing a candidate based on their gender or race is bigotry, plain and simple.

i'm actually going to have to go with ch on this one. there is a difference between deciding to support someone of a group that has been disproportionately excluded from power on the basis of either strongly identifying with that group or on the basis of "it's about time", etc, vs. supporting someone because you refuse to support someone else from those excluded groups.

There may be a difference, but it is still bigotry.

Voting for Clinton because she is a woman is just as sexist as refusing to vote for her because she is a woman.

Voting for Obama because he is black is just as racist as refusing to vote for him because he is black.

I think it's about time we had a female president. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote for a candidate because she happens to have a vagina. If I voted for her on that basis, I would be acting in a sexist manner.

Now, if I thought she was the best candidate and then she also was female, great! It means that we'd have a great candidate who would break the glass ceiling.

Same thing goes for race. The candidate I think is the best happens to have obviously darker skin. Huzzah! Breaking the color barrier!

But breaking the glass ceiling or the color barrier cannot be ends unto themselves. The end should be equality. And you aren't going to get that by promoting people - of any gender or race - simply because of their gender or race.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 20:41

There may be a difference, but it is still bigotry.

Voting for Clinton because she is a woman is just as sexist as refusing to vote for her because she is a woman.

Voting for Obama because he is black is just as racist as refusing to vote for him because he is black.

I think it's about time we had a female president. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote for a candidate because she happens to have a vagina. If I voted for her on that basis, I would be acting in a sexist manner.

if there are several candidates who meet your basic criteria, then voting to empower a person of an excluded group - especially your excluded group - is perfectly permissible. more than that, it is exactly what you ought do unless you have serious reason to do otherwise. we can only get to equality by actively seeking it out and enacting it.

But breaking the glass ceiling or the color barrier cannot be ends unto themselves. The end should be equality. And you aren't going to get that by promoting people - of any gender or race - simply because of their gender or race.

at least in the case of obama's 'racist' supporters, i know with absolute certainty that this is not what they did. and i know this because of alan fucking keyes. exactly how many african americans voted for alan keyes in his various runs at the presidency? approximately none. they were too busy voting for the white guy.

(incidentally, alan keyes also offers us data on the baseline level of republican support - the crazification factor. it's about 27%)

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 20:50

if there are several candidates who meet your basic criteria, then voting to empower a person of an excluded group - especially your excluded group - is perfectly permissible. more than that, it is exactly what you ought do unless you have serious reason to do otherwise. we can only get to equality by actively seeking it out and enacting it.

We can't get to equality at all if we constantly use race or gender as an important factor.

There is only one way I might agree that the consideration would be appropriate. That would be if Clinton and Obama were exactly identical except for genitalia or skin color.

If you want a society in which racism and sexism don't play a major part, you can't respond by using them. You vote for the best candidate, regardless of what skin color they have or what they have between their legs.

at least in the case of obama's 'racist' supporters, i know with absolute certainty that this is not what they did.

Some of them say that they did. Less than those who say they did in Clinton's favor, mind you, but there are those in favor of Obama who said that race was an important factor - even sometimes the most important.

If race is an important factor, that is racism, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it is against or in favor of the minority. It's still racism.

Edit: Note, by the way, that you are assuming that these voters are black. Nothing in the poll correlated the race of the voter to whether or not they voted in a racist manner (or the sex of the voter to whether or not they voted in a sexist manner). It is entirely possible that many of the voters who voted for Obama because of his race were white, just as it is entirely possible that many of the people who voted for Clinton because of her sex were male.

Vamosa

02-06-2008, 20:59

Nothing in the poll correlated the race of the voter to whether or not they voted in a racist manner (or the sex of the voter to whether or not they voted in a sexist manner). It is entirely possible that many of the voters who voted for Obama because of his race were white, just as it is entirely possible that many of the people who voted for Clinton because of her sex were male.

Except that neither of these options have been the trend at all in this election. Obama has won the black vote by the 80-90% range in almost every primary following North Carolina, and Clinton is almost always favored most by white women.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 21:03

We can't get to equality at all if we constantly use race or gender as an important factor.

this is fundamentally untrue. the only way we have been able to get to the point where we can (sometimes) ignore race or gender has come from years of work that was quite explicitly using race and gender as an important factor. to do otherwise is to just let the earlier oppression continue, though perhaps more quietly.

we cannot get started down the road to equality by ignoring the exit signs.
and having taken the exit, we cannot know where we are on the road to equality if we prematurely start pretending we are already there.

Kamsaki-Myu

02-06-2008, 21:03

They weren't asked if gender or race was somehow important. They were asked if they personally found it to be important.
Thanks for the clarification. The wording on the second question would be a little ambiguous in speech, and I would have had to ask for clarification myself when answering to be on the safe side, but in the context of the first, the intention of the question would probably be inferred as to deal with voting motive rather than opinion of the campaign. In which case, the figures are a little higher than I would have thought (and hoped), but the trend is roughly as I'd have expected it to be - the gender issue does not greatly trouble the camp voting for the man, but everyone thinks it's a big deal that a black guy might get the nomination.

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 21:22

Except that neither of these options have been the trend at all in this election. Obama has won the black vote by the 80-90% range in almost every primary following North Carolina, and Clinton is almost always favored most by white women.

Again, there is nothing demonstrating who answered each question in what way.

There are no "trends" that can be used to answer this question. You can make assumptions, but that's all they are.

If Clinton is favored both by white women and by those who vote based on race or gender, does that mean that most white women voted based on race or gender? Of course not. It's a possibility, but it is far from certain.

this is fundamentally untrue. the only way we have been able to get to the point where we can (sometimes) ignore race or gender has come from years of work that was quite explicitly using race and gender as an important factor. to do otherwise is to just let the earlier oppression continue, though perhaps more quietly.

Actually, using it as an important factor is counter-productive. It generally means that you end up with less or unqualified candidates of a given minority status which then does nothing but exacerbate the prejudice against them.

It is one thing to use minority status as a tiebreaker of sorts when all other factors have already played out. It is quite another to use minority status as a major factor.

we cannot get started down the road to equality by ignoring the exit signs.
and having taken the exit, we cannot know where we are on the road to equality if we prematurely start pretending we are already there.

I'm not saying we're already there. I'm saying we won't get there if we turn and join the bigots. If anything, doing so will take us backwards instead of forward. If we start using sexism or racism of our own, we're no better than the sexists or racists opposed to minority equality.

Deciding something like this based on sex or race is bigotry. It doesn't matter which side you're promoting. A person who chooses a candidate because she has a vagina is fundamentally no better than one who chooses a candidate because he has a penis.l A person who chooses a candidate because he has dark skin is fundamentally no better than one who chooses a candidate because he has pale skin. They are all doing exactly the same thing - choosing a candidate based on an irrelevant trait, rather than their ability to do the job.

In which case, the figures are a little higher than I would have thought (and hoped), but the trend is roughly as I'd have expected it to be - the gender issue does not greatly trouble the camp voting for the man, but everyone thinks it's a big deal that a black guy might get the nomination.

Yeah, I was incredibly disappointed. When I set the bar at 10%, I thought it was pretty high and that there would be states that could be left off the list. I find it incredibly depressing that so many people are choosing to vote based on genitalia or skin color in 2008 - and in the party that is supposed to be progressive.

I'm an optimist at heart, but the numbers don't do much for my opinion of voters.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 21:26

It is one thing to use minority status as a tiebreaker of sorts when all other factors have already played out.

in this race, they have.

edit: as for assuming that the 'racists' for obama are black, it isn't actually necessary to my point. white people didn't vote for alan keyes either.

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 21:33

in this race, they have.

No, they haven't. There are all sorts of differences between the candidates for anyone who looks.

The only reason to resort to gender or race is because those things are more important to you than the actual issues. Or, perhaps you're too lazy to look and you'll fall back on those traits.

There is no indication whatsoever that these things were used as a last criteria simply because there was nothing else to decide on. In fact, given the fact that the question asked whether or not it was important, it would appear that this isn't the case.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 21:41

No, they haven't. There are all sorts of differences between the candidates for anyone who looks.

The only reason to resort to gender or race is because those things are more important to you than the actual issues. Or, perhaps you're too lazy to look and you'll fall back on those traits.

There is no indication whatsoever that these things were used as a last criteria simply because there was nothing else to decide on. In fact, given the fact that the question asked whether or not it was important, it would appear that this isn't the case.

you have different standards for what would be an acceptable presidential nominee than other people. lots of people have "is a democrat" as the predominant one.

there simply isn't an unambiguously and obvious 'right' ordering of the various characteristics that candidates have that everyone should adhere to. but by all but us junkies standards, both clinton and obama made most people's cuts. we know because we asked them. so what wound up being very important to them was identity politics and symbolism.

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 22:01

you have different standards for what would be an acceptable presidential nominee than other people. lots of people have "is a democrat" as the predominant one.

Yes, I am aware that most people don't bother to actually think when they vote. That isn't a good thing.

And it doesn't suddenly become a good thing when their laziness defaults to picking based on genitalia or skin color.

there simply isn't an unambiguously and obvious 'right' ordering of the various characteristics that candidates have that everyone should adhere to. but by all but us junkies standards, both clinton and obama made most people's cuts. we know because we asked them. so what wound up being very important to them was identity politics and symbolism.

Irrelevant factors like race and gender should be at the absolute bottom of the heap - for everyone. Otherwise, they are voting in a racist or sexist manner.

Think about it this way:

Let's say we have a scenario in which there are two candidates applying for a job. They both made the basic cut, which means that their resume is on your desk. There are factors on which they differ contained in their resumes - factors that would affect their ability to do the job. One is a woman. One is a man. Without bothering to even look at their resumes, you choose the man. Sexist or not? Does it change if you choose the woman instead?

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 22:17

Let's say we have a scenario in which there are two candidates applying for a job. They both made the basic cut, which means that their resume is on your desk. There are factors on which they differ contained in their resumes - factors that would affect their ability to do the job. One is a woman. One is a man. Without bothering to even look at their resumes, you choose the man. Sexist or not? Does it change if you choose the woman instead?

is my workplace still infected with the residue of years of sexism - do i have way more dudes than girls around, or are the positions in the workplace hierarchy sorted by sex? if so, then i would probably be being sexist to choose the man over the woman, but not sexist in the reverse. after all, they did each cross the relevant threshold, and equality is a fundamental value we ought strive for.

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 22:35

is my workplace still infected with the residue of years of sexism - do i have way more dudes than girls around, or are the positions in the workplace hierarchy sorted by sex? if so, then i would probably be being sexist to choose the man over the woman, but not sexist in the reverse. after all, they did each cross the relevant threshold, and equality is a fundamental value we ought strive for.

But you aren't striving for equality. Striving for equality would mean giving the position to the woman if and only if she were either equal to the man or better.

You don't even check. You just say, "Well, she's got a vagina and I guess she doesn't suck completely. Give it to her."

As a woman, if I knew you made a determination like that, I'd tell you exactly where you could shove the job.

Free Soviets

02-06-2008, 22:56

But you aren't striving for equality. Striving for equality would mean giving the position to the woman if and only if she were either equal to the man or better.

she is the equal of the man according to the relevant standards. that they differ in further ways doesn't outweigh the value of achieving egalitarian goals.

Dempublicents1

02-06-2008, 23:10

she is the equal of the man according to the relevant standards.

You didn't look at the relevant standards. They were in her resume and all you looked at was her sex.

Just getting through the first hurdle does not mean you are equal to everyone else who got through the first hurdle.

Imagine that your two candidates both made it onto your desk. But one of them has more relevant experience than the other. One of them has been through 5 jobs in the past 3 years. One of them is actually rather rude and doesn't get along well with others. One of them has a few certifications the other doesn't.

While these may not have been involved in the first cut - getting the resume on your desk, they are certainly all relevant issues in determining who to hire.

But you don't know any of that, because you didn't bother to find out. You chose based on the sex of the person, making you exactly the same as someone who chose the male on the same basis.

that they differ in further ways doesn't outweigh the value of achieving egalitarian goals.

You don't achieve egalitarian goals by choosing based on her genitalia, rather than even bothering to see if she is actually the best candidate for the job.

Quite the opposite, in fact. What you're saying is that we should choose based only on the least common denominator, as long as it opens us up to be able to choose based on genitalia or skin color. Don't bother with choosing the best candidate. Just choose the one with the right minority status.

Yeah, that's real egalitarian of you.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 00:32

You didn't look at the relevant standards. They were in her resume and all you looked at was her sex.

Just getting through the first hurdle does not mean you are equal to everyone else who got through the first hurdle.

Imagine that your two candidates both made it onto your desk. But one of them has more relevant experience than the other. One of them has been through 5 jobs in the past 3 years. One of them is actually rather rude and doesn't get along well with others. One of them has a few certifications the other doesn't.

While these may not have been involved in the first cut - getting the resume on your desk, they are certainly all relevant issues in determining who to hire.

But you don't know any of that, because you didn't bother to find out. You chose based on the sex of the person, making you exactly the same as someone who chose the male on the same basis.

apparently your 'making the basic cut' and mine were slightly different. i was taking it to mean that either of these would be acceptable for the job if they were the only one applying (as most dems still say of obama and clinton, for example). thus we have to decide on criteria above and beyond our basic requirements.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 00:40

your conceptions of racism and sexism are naive and self-defeating - they don't offer a path from where we are to where you would like to be.

That's not an argument and, frankly, is fallacious, as are all ad hominems. My "conception of racism" are right. Whether you don't like them or you think it makes me naive doesn't have an relevance on that.

and that ain't identity politics.

It isn't? Why? Because they're white? It's interesting how willing you are to excuse it when it's minorities and decry it when it's not. Your coneptions of racism and sexism are naive and self-defeating. Naive because of their lack of understanding of the world and self-defeating because it's double-speak. See what I did there. I used your terms and then I actually supported my accusations (made an argument) instead of just attacking you and hoping no one would notice that I didn't make an argument.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 00:41

apparently your 'making the basic cut' and mine were slightly different. i was taking it to mean that either of these would be acceptable for the job if they were the only one applying (as most dems still say of obama and clinton, for example). thus we have to decide on criteria above and beyond our basic requirements.

Either might be acceptable. They both meet the lowest bar at which you could possibly hire someone for the job.. But once you have it down to two, you don't choose based on acceptable. You choose based on who would be best.

And since having a vagina doesn't inherently make you better at many jobs, it really shouldn't come into it unless you can't possibly decide on other criteria. If and only if the candidates are virtually identical should you even consider their sex. And no, I don't consider 'meets the minimum criteria" as virtually identical.,

Choosing based on sex without even bothering to make a direct comparison, as you said you would do, is sexism. It doesn't matter if you choose the man or the woman.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 00:47

this is fundamentally untrue. the only way we have been able to get to the point where we can (sometimes) ignore race or gender has come from years of work that was quite explicitly using race and gender as an important factor. to do otherwise is to just let the earlier oppression continue, though perhaps more quietly.

False. This is EXACTLY why quotas are illegal. The law says that any population of employees should reflect the demographics of employees with that skill set. It uses this as an indicator you are hiring based on races and seeks to end it. Not the other way around. Your misunderstanding of AA doesn't make it true. It also doesn't excuse racism.

As you already admitted if I choose my server based on their sex and race that you would judge me poorly, as you should, because I've demonstrated that I can be both racist and sexist.

we cannot get started down the road to equality by ignoring the exit signs.
and having taken the exit, we cannot know where we are on the road to equality if we prematurely start pretending we are already there.

We aren't ignoring them. No one says we can't examine racial demographics and racial woes. But it is ILLEGAL to choose employees to fill a quota. It should be considered equally spurious to do so with a vote.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 00:51

It's interesting how willing you are to excuse it when it's minorities and decry it when it's not.

Hmmmm, double standards based on race and gender.

What do we generally call that?

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 01:11

False. This is EXACTLY why quotas are illegal. The law says that any population of employees should reflect the demographics of employees with that skill set. It uses this as an indicator you are hiring based on races and seeks to end it. Not the other way around. Your misunderstanding of AA doesn't make it true.

i don't recall saying anything about what aa required...

aa doesn't go far enough, though it is certainly better than nothing. it is bound by a number of constitutional limitations that we could fix our racial problems more quickly without. that is neither here nor there though, as aa programs are irrelevant to what i am talking about. we made no progress on the racial front for a century - lost ground, actually - while not organizing around black identity itself as a positive thing. we have seen this again and again within the context of liberal democracy; you don't make gains without getting in people's faces saying "we're here, we're queer, get fucking used to it!"

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 01:46

i don't recall saying anything about what aa required...

aa doesn't go far enough, though it is certainly better than nothing. it is bound by a number of constitutional limitations that we could fix our racial problems more quickly without. that is neither here nor there though, as aa programs are irrelevant to what i am talking about. we made no progress on the racial front for a century - lost ground, actually - while not organizing around black identity itself as a positive thing. we have seen this again and again within the context of liberal democracy; you don't make gains without getting in people's faces saying "we're here, we're queer, get fucking used to it!"

Racism would not solve the problem of racism. Our problem is that race is treated as a factor for judging people and will not be solved by doing it more. It's amusing you called me naive and then suggest just giving jobs to people because they have the right parts and/or skin color will solve anything.

Saying, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it", isn't quite the same as "we're here, we're queer, now give me your job because I'm queer." "Get used to it" means "treat me like a person and not a freak", not "treat me like a different kind of freak".

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 03:16

Racism would not solve the problem of racism. Our problem is that race is treated as a factor for judging people and will not be solved by doing it more.

that is not what racism is. that is not what racism ever was. racism absolutely must entail more than merely treating race as a factor in judging people. it must at the very least contain the idea that some race is, as a race, superior to others. and really, that belief must have systemic effects such that the 'superior race' is socially privileged and the 'inferior races' are socially disadvantaged and the objects of widespread negative attitudes. anything less than that is mere idiosyncratic weirdness, and downplays the actual nature and horror of racism.

and the idea that we can't solve a problem by engaging in countervailing action is ludicrous on its face.

It's amusing you called me naive and then suggest just giving jobs to people because they have the right parts and/or skin color will solve anything.

'just giving' once the basic qualifications are met, in line with an egalitarian distribution we would expect given the population. in other words, no longer making up additional hurdles for the disadvantaged to jump through.

Saying, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it", isn't quite the same as "we're here, we're queer, now give me your job because I'm queer." "Get used to it" means "treat me like a person and not a freak", not "treat me like a different kind of freak".

queer activism is not the same as liberal gay mainstreaming. check out the history of that slogan sometime. it was explicitly an identity movement thing, from a group that not only sought to get gays into every part of society, but went around outing closeted ones in high places.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 04:02

Saying, "we're here, we're queer, get used to it", isn't quite the same as "we're here, we're queer, now give me your job because I'm queer."

So how much do you know about Queer Nation, anyway?

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 04:14

So how much do you know about Queer Nation, anyway?

What would you like to know?

Soheran

03-06-2008, 04:22

False. This is EXACTLY why quotas are illegal.

No, quotas are illegal because they don't grant enough attention to the issue of qualification: you must have a certain number of minorities. Legal affirmative action programs, on the other hand, begin from a field of qualified candidates and only then take race into consideration.

Identity politics, in the same vein, tend not to support just any member of the relevant grouping--rather ones who are actually committed to advancing the interest of the relevant community. Its logic is that members of racial or sexual minorities are better capable of understanding and more willing to understand the concerns of those groups... and there's good reason to accept that premise.

There are real problems with identity politics, but that's not one of them.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 04:27

that is not what racism is. that is not what racism ever was. racism absolutely must entail more than merely treating race as a factor in judging people. it must at the very least contain the idea that some race is, as a race, superior to others. and really, that belief must have systemic effects such that the 'superior race' is socially privileged and the 'inferior races' are socially disadvantaged and the objects of widespread negative attitudes. anything less than that is mere idiosyncratic weirdness, and downplays the actual nature and horror of racism.

and the idea that we can't solve a problem by engaging in countervailing action is ludicrous on its face.

Uh-huh. I guess one of us knows the meaning of the word and the other of us is pretending to not know what it means.

Racism has two meanings. One of them is what you described. The OTHER is exactly what I described. Racism is racial discrimination or prejudice.

Yes, let's make the inane argument that if you recognize the more subtle forms of racism then you're downplaying genocide. There are many forms of racism. I'm sorry that you struggle with recognizing that some problems have degrees.

Racism is not coutnervailing action. It's the problem.

'just giving' once the basic qualifications are met, in line with an egalitarian distribution we would expect given the population. in other words, no longer making up additional hurdles for the disadvantaged to jump through.

"Basic"? It's a bad thing for people of any race to be given a job they are obviously less qualified for. It's what the idiots belief AA is. It isn't. It solves nothing and perpetuates the belief that qualified candidates of particular races don't exist so people have to accept lesser candidates.

No one is making up additional hurdles and strawmen don't suit you. I am suggesting that the same hurdles be placed before both blacks and white. What AA does is analyze any evidence that additional hurdles ARE being added. You're asking that the hurdles that any other candidate would face be removed. For example, if I choose between two white candidates I don't just ensure the "basic" requirements are met. I choose the one that is best qualified. IF I can't reasonably tell the difference than I choose some arbitrary means, if one were black then that's as arbitrary as any other and might as well be used. However, I first do my best to discern the best candidate.

queer activism is not the same as liberal gay mainstreaming. check out the history of that slogan sometime. it was explicitly an identity movement thing, from a group that not only sought to get gays into every part of society, but went around outing closeted ones in high places.

You mean, check and see if it was coined by a group that steadily became more radical until most mainstream gays disagreed with them.

It's precisely the arguments you make that makes some groups suggest that gays are "attacking" the family. The fact is that most of ANY group simply want to be treated normally. Choosing the radicals that are counterproductive may be your style, but given how often they're the poster children for movements against them, I'll stick with the MLKs of the world. Thanks all the same. But, hey, maybe MLK didn't know what racism was either. Yeah, probably right. If only he'd met you.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 04:28

Choosing the radicals that are counterproductive may be your style, but given how often they're the poster children for movements against them, I'll stick with the MLKs of the world. Thanks all the same. But, hey, maybe MLK didn't know what racism was either. Yeah, probably right. If only he'd met you.

mlk jr isn't actually all that great of an example for your side here...

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 04:33

No, quotas are illegal because they don't grant enough attention to the issue of qualification: you must have a certain number of minorities. Legal affirmative action programs, on the other hand, begin from a field of qualified candidates and only then take race into consideration.

Heh. They are? And here I thought they were illegal because of a 14th amendment violation.

An AA violation would be based on looking at the demographics of an employee population and compare to potential qualified candidates. You can beat such an accusation by showing you chose the most qualified candidate. If you showed that you selected someone based on their skin color over an obviously more qualified candidate for the job you would have a problem.

Identity politics, in the same vein, tend not to support just any member of the relevant grouping--rather ones who are actually committed to advancing the interest of the relevant community. Its logic is that members of racial or sexual minorities are better capable of understanding and more willing to understand the concerns of those groups... and there's good reason to accept that premise.

There are real problems with identity politics, but that's not one of them.

If the person you're choosing, you're choosing is because they are the most likely to advance your interest, then great. If you choose them because they have the same skin, parts or sexuality as you, and therefore more likely to advance your interests, you're a bigot. It IS bigotted to believe that someone of a particular skin color is more likely to be like you and it's equally bigotted to choose them for that reason.

I believe white people better will protect the interests of white people. I will vote for white people from now on. Don't worry though. I'll choose the most qualified white candidate, I promise.

Nothing racist about that, of course. And the fact that white men have only been Presidents thus far isn't racism. Just identity politics. Sucks to be a minority.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 04:36

mlk jr isn't actually all that great of an example for your side here...

There are better examples than NUH-UH. I work on evidence. Feel free to present evidence, if you like.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 04:38

There are real problems with identity politics, but that's not one of them.

are you thinking of the tendency towards separatism or the questionable essentialism it often partakes in? or something else?

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 04:39

are you thinking of the tendency towards separatism or the questionable essentialism it often partakes in? or something else?

You might start a new thread at this point. This is about to be a full out hijack.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 04:58

You mean, check and see if it was coined by a group that steadily became more radical until most mainstream gays disagreed with them.

Did most mainstream women embrace the feminist movement from the moment of its emergence?

It's precisely the arguments you make that makes some groups suggest that gays are "attacking" the family.

Let's not hold any illusions here. It's the fact that queers kiss each other and fuck each other and hold hands together (in public!) that makes "some groups" suggest that we are attacking the family. The fact that some of us even want to marry each other and raise children is a nice bonus.

You don't win equality by being nice to people who hate you.

The fact is that most of ANY group simply want to be treated normally.

If by "normally" you mean "equally" (by no means a given), you're of course right. But what does it prove? It tells us nothing about how to get there.

Choosing the radicals that are counterproductive may be your style, but given how often they're the poster children for movements against them, I'll stick with the MLKs of the world.

As if MLK wasn't hated and demonized by the "movements against them"?

Every movement for change inspires opposition from people who support the status quo. Shocking, isn't it.

Heh. They are? And here I thought they were illegal because of a 14th amendment violation.

"Equal protection" isn't a term with a non-ambiguous meaning.

You can beat such an accusation by showing you chose the most qualified candidate.

Who's the "most qualified" candidate? At that point, even without affirmative action decisions often have little to do with "qualification" in the narrow sense. Even if you use some measure of qualification, the differences might not be great enough to actually be significant.

It IS bigotted to believe that someone of a particular skin color is more likely to be like you

In this particular respect? No, it isn't bigoted at all. It's honest, in a society as racially dominated as this one is.

Of course, that's not your sole consideration. Some blacks couldn't give a shit about advancing the interests of black people, and that is often clear in their political stances. But it is a consideration.

I believe white people better will protect the interests of white people.

In general, you're probably right.

I will vote for white people from now on.

But do white people need their interests advanced? Are they victims of massive racial inequity? Hardly.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 05:03

There are better examples than NUH-UH. I work on evidence. Feel free to present evidence, if you like.

i was just saying, mlk jr is more of your dangerous radical type than your liberal reformist.

and he certainly wasn't against a bit of identity politics (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Where_do_we_go_from_here.html);
Where do we go from here? First, we must massively assert our dignity and worth. We must stand up amid a system that still oppresses us and develop an unassailable and majestic sense of values. We must no longer be ashamed of being black. The job of arousing manhood within a people that have been taught for so many centuries that they are nobody is not easy.

Even semantics have conspired to make that which is black seem ugly and degrading. In Roget's Thesaurus there are some 120 synonyms for blackness and at least sixty of them are offensive, such words as blot, soot, grim, devil, and foul. And there are some 134 synonyms for whiteness and all are favorable, expressed in such words as purity, cleanliness, chastity, and innocence. A white lie is better than a black lie. The most degenerate member of a family is the "black sheep." Ossie Davis has suggested that maybe the English language should be reconstructed so that teachers will not be forced to teach the Negro child sixty ways to despise himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of inferiority, and the white child 134 ways to adore himself, and thereby perpetuate his false sense of superiority. [applause] The tendency to ignore the Negro's contribution to American life and strip him of his personhood is as old as the earliest history books and as contemporary as the morning's newspaper.

To offset this cultural homicide, the Negro must rise up with an affirmation of his own Olympian manhood. Any movement for the Negro's freedom that overlooks this necessity is only waiting to be buried. As long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free. Psychological freedom, a firm sense of self-esteem, is the most powerful weapon against the long night of physical slavery. No Lincolnian Emancipation Proclamation, no Johnsonian civil rights bill can totally bring this kind of freedom. The Negro will only be free when he reaches down to the inner depths of his own being and signs with the pen and ink of assertive manhood his own emancipation proclamation. And with a spirit straining toward true self-esteem, the Negro must boldly throw off the manacles of self-abnegation and say to himself and to the world, "I am somebody. I am a person. I am a man with dignity and honor. I have a rich and noble history, however painful and exploited that history has been. Yes, I was a slave through my foreparents, and now I’m not ashamed of that. I'm ashamed of the people who were so sinful to make me a slave." Yes [applause], yes, we must stand up and say, "I'm black, but I'm black and beautiful." This [applause], this self-affirmation is the black man's need, made compelling by the white man's crimes against him.

Now another basic challenge is to discover how to organize our strength in to economic and political power. Now no one can deny that the Negro is in dire need of this kind of legitimate power. Indeed, one of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. From the old plantations of the South to the newer ghettos of the North, the Negro has been confined to a life of voicelessness and powerlessness. Stripped of the right to make decisions concerning his life and destiny he has been subject to the authoritarian and sometimes whimsical decisions of the white power structure. The plantation and the ghetto were created by those who had power, both to confine those who had no power and to perpetuate their powerlessness. Now the problem of transforming the ghetto, therefore, is a problem of power, a confrontation between the forces of power demanding change and the forces of power dedicated to the preserving of the status quo.

Everywhar

03-06-2008, 05:09

Martin Luther King Jr. was probably a radical. He was definitely not mainstream:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 05:11

are you thinking of the tendency towards separatism or the questionable essentialism it often partakes in? or something else?

Two things.

First, identity politics tends to be one-dimensional: for instance, feminist and queer identity politics have traditionally subordinated issues of race and class, with unfortunate consequences. People don't generally group Queer Nation and the Human Rights Campaign together, but in this respect they mirror one another.

Second, by making their appeals on the basis of group identity, they have a tendency to underemphasize the necessity of making a moral appeal to the public as a whole... which, absent workable separatism, is what's ultimately necessary. The key to the successful "identity politics" of, say, the Civil Rights Movement was a successful melding of these two elements, by using a largely black (by necessity) movement to challenge whites to reject white racism.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 05:18

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 05:21

I take it your giving in on the original argument, huh? Because you seem to be desperately avoiding defending it. You brought up identity politics. I said I was against ONE thing. It's never changed. It hasn't expanded or morphed. You keep using loaded terms in hopes you can find some ground where you're right. It's not going to work.

Here is my claim - if you choose to support someone because of the color of their skin when there are qualifications you're not considering, then you are a racist. If you do so by their gender you are a sexist.

You claimed that it's okay if it's a female or if the person is black. You're so far from that as to make it unrecognizable.

and you are using the word 'racism' in a way that makes mlk jr notable for his 'racism'

Cannot think of a name

03-06-2008, 05:22

You could argue that this is the most life this thread has had, especially since (and I called this) you can't really separate the primary discussion and the polls, especially since all CH has left, despite the fact that they are unconvincing.

But, I'm pretty sure identity politics is its own discussion that, honestly, many NSGers would participate in if it wasn't masquerading as a thread about American election polls...

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 05:26

and you are using the word 'racism' in a way that makes mlk jr notable for his 'racism'

MLK did exhibit some racism, actually. However, what he was noted for was attempting to make it so people were treated equally. Recognizing color is not the same as discrimination in this context.

Seriously, you don't understand degrees? I'm not sure how to help you understand. Here, try this. Go to your stove and turn the burner on. Wait ten minutes and then touch the metal. Very quickly. Immediately put your finger under cold water. That injury you'll have it's called a burn. Now go back to the burner that is still on and put your hand on it for five minutes. Guess what that's called.

Everywhar

03-06-2008, 05:28

Seriously, you don't understand degrees? I'm not sure how to help you understand. Here, try this. Go to your stove and turn the burner on. Wait ten minutes and then touch the metal. Very quickly. Immediately put your finger under cold water. That injury you'll have it's called a burn. Now go back to the burner that is still on and put your hand on it for five minutes. Guess what that's called.
Trolling? I don't know; I give up. What is it called?

Soheran

03-06-2008, 05:46

Everywhar: It's nice to get sigged. :)

Those tactics are STILL not embraces.

And militant feminism is? Come on.

The women didn't get upset because they were ACTUALLY being mistreated by the women's movement.

Are you suggesting that Queer Nation "actually" mistreated queers? What's your basis for that?

(Are you talking about "outing"? But the feminist movement certainly made sexist women one of their targets, so....)

The women's movement gave women MORE choices not less.

Yeah, Queer Nation wanted freedom and equality, too. So?

However, unfortunately, when lunatic fringe groups start mistreating people and ACTUALLY attacking, you can't tell the difference between the homophobes and those who are rationally reacting to bad behavior.

Um, yes, you can. People who say gays are going to destroy marriage aren't "rationally reacting" to anything. People who make serious, fair criticism of certain tactics are in a different category.

Outing people because you think they're gay is deciding the group is more important than individual.

Queer Nation didn't "out" just anyone. Hypocrites who participate in institutional heterosexism while being gay should absolutely be outed.

We are aware that radical movements tend to gel and give credence to the opposition, especially in a world where bigotry is shunned.

I'm not "aware" of any such thing.

The gay civil rights movement didn't really start in 1969. The first significant gay rights organization in the US was actually the Mattachine Society, founded in the early 1950s. There are pictures of their periodic demonstrations in Washington DC--"normal" people in formal dress, marching peacefully with signs saying things like "Rights for Homosexuals" and such.

But it took a riot to actually get things going.

Some movements JUSTIFY the opposition. Movements that attack gays for keeping their private lives private and violate their individual rights JUSTIFY the opposition.

To gay rights? No, they don't.

You realize this is a hijack of a hijack. What's wrong with discussing the original point?

The original point was identity politics, wasn't it? You're the one who brought up outing, not me... there are other things we could discuss about Queer Nation. Like their willingness to criticize straight people... sometimes in very general terms. Because they understood, as so many straight people don't, that heterosexism is not "a few bad apples", but systemic.

Kind of like the way many black voters recognize the same thing about racism.

Excellent double negative. You sound like Pinnochio in Shrek 3. Speak plainly.

It meant what it said. You can't just reference the Fourteenth Amendment when the issue is how you interpret it.

If you choose your candidate based on the color of their skin. Then you're a bigot.

"Based on the color of their skin" is an ambiguous description.

Affirmative action chooses among qualified candidates "based on the color of their skin" in that it favors racial minorities... but it does so because it wants to reverse racial subordination, not because it believes in black supremacy.

By the same token, voters voting for black candidates among similar candidates "because they are black" are not racist as long as their aim is achieving equality.

Well, spread that around. We'll keep nominating white Presidents.

Apparently unlike you, I believe whites can reject racism and think beyond their own interests.

Everyone needs their interests protected.

But everyone has their interests protected, to one degree or another... the question is, "how much"?

Everywhar

03-06-2008, 05:52

I disagree. I don't think all people should have their interests protected. Some people have interests which are illegitimate and worth undermining.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 06:28

and you are using the word 'racism' in a way that makes mlk jr notable for his 'racism'

MLK Jr suggested that we choose Presidents by color? Where?

Regardles, I am using the definition. Once again, I notice you avoided the argument. No surpise. You're losing.

Tomorrow's lesson, the difference between use of the word cake in Urinal Cake and Bundt Cake.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 06:31

Apparently unlike you, I believe whites can reject racism and think beyond their own interests.

I deleted that post for a reason. You've completely gotten away from the point. But this part is on topic. I agree. I WOULD be racism if people did that. Thanks for agreeing. It would be nice if people thought about equality rather than just what a particular gender or color cares about.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 06:35

I agree. I WOULD be racism if people did that. Thanks for agreeing.

Everyone who's posted on this topic agrees with that. The point is, it's not the same thing when voters vote for minority candidates "because of their race/gender/sexual orientation" so as to support equality.

And in that context, it's perfectly relevant to discuss the actual substantive effectiveness of certain tactics aiming at that goal.

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 07:01

Everyone who's posted on this topic agrees with that. The point is, it's not the same thing when voters vote for minority candidates "because of their race/gender/sexual orientation" so as to support equality.

And in that context, it's perfectly relevant to discuss the actual substantive effectiveness of certain tactics aiming at that goal.

The problem here is that you conflated two points in one vote. They are opposing. You are not supporting equality if you choose a candidate BECAUSE they are a woman or white. This is supported by the FACT that the candidate that pandered to racist and sexists actually got the most votes *gasp* by racists and sexists. Who'd have thunk it?

It's not coincidence that Clinton's votes due to race were generally significantly disproportionate from the outcome. Same with sexists.

In PR, 3 in 10 people said that the most important thing they had to vote on was her sex. It wasn't A factor. It was THE factor.

IT's no coincidence that the sexist voting started when she started pandering to sexists and that when she began making racist arguments, SHOCKER, she started getting the votes of racist and started getting voted against by the majority of the group she was exhibiting racism toward.

It's almost... rational.

New Malachite Square

03-06-2008, 07:23

Affirmative action chooses among qualified candidates "based on the color of their skin" in that it favors racial minorities... but it does so because it wants to reverse racial subordination, not because it believes in black supremacy.

I think I may have misunderstood this part. In what way does affirmative action show favouritism towards racial minorities?

Soheran

03-06-2008, 07:40

You are not supporting equality if you choose a candidate BECAUSE they are a woman or white.

What a way to conflate things. Obviously you are not supporting equality if you are reinforcing the overrepresentation of whites in politics. But you might be supporting equality if you are instead undermining the underrepresentation of women in politics.

Different cases. Different justifications. Different judgment.

This is supported by the FACT that the candidate that pandered to racist and sexists actually got the most votes *gasp* by racists and sexists. Who'd have thunk it?

Wait, are you seriously maintaining that the gender differences between support for Clinton and support for Obama are due to female sexism? Are you just going to ignore the grotesquely sexist treatment Clinton has gotten from the start?

In PR, 3 in 10 people said that the most important thing they had to vote on was her sex.

So? Plenty of people voted for Obama because of his race... and more to the point, in neither case is the decision problematic, because the differences between the two are non-substantive and the advantage to equality to be garnered by having a black or female president is potentially significant.

I think I may have misunderstood this part. In what way does affirmative action show favouritism towards racial minorities?

It doesn't, insofar as its end is racial equality. But it does in that its entire point is to grant special consideration to those victimized by past and present discrimination.

New Malachite Square

03-06-2008, 07:46

It doesn't, insofar as its end is racial equality. But it does in that its entire point is to grant special consideration to those victimized by past and present discrimination.

But assuring that those hired from the pool of qualified candidates reflects racial demographics is hardly favouritism…

Jocabia

03-06-2008, 08:02

But assuring that those hired from the pool of qualified candidates reflects racial demographics is hardly favouritism…

Oh, look, someone ACTUALLY knows what affirmative action is. See how much that helps.

Walk into a courtroom and say, there was a difference between their qualifications but I hired the black guy and you WILL get busted.

That was what we were talking about. There is a difference between Clinton and Obama. To say there isn't requires one to shut their eyes or just blatantly lie. One could debate how important that difference is, but they clearly differ in approach, they clearly differ in their health plans, they clearly differ in their approach to Iran, they clearly differ in their approach to gas plans. Hell, on gas Clinton praised McCain over Obama. But people didn't cite any of those reasons.

And the part about race from Soheran is combatted by the evidence. Those voting on race favored Clinton as well. This suggests that she had something that played well with people who voted on race and gender, non-substantive factors.

Kamsaki-Myu

03-06-2008, 09:39

Regardles, I am using the definition. Once again, I notice you avoided the argument. No surpise. You're losing.
Whenever you decide the definition of a particular word and refuse to yield it for the purpose of discussion, you cannot "lose" a debate, in the sense that your position will be proved wrong. However, Debate can be Lost, in that dialogue can no longer occur due to a mismatch in protocol. In this case, in particular, acknowledging your definition to be common, then obviously you're correct. But we're not interested in whether or not people are adopting a position of subconsciously splitting society into ethnographic groups when they're supporting someone purely on the basis of representing that group, which is patently true - we're interested in the extent to which this represents ethnographic tension, and the phrases "racism" and "sexism" seem more convenient and fluent phrases to use in this context.

I'm sure I've made this point to you before, but strict adherence to "dictionary definition" is not the point of language, nor is it even a reliable sense in which language can be interpreted. You need to be prepared to accept that words can mean different things in different circumstances, and to dismiss this sort of "my way of interpreting the word is necessarily correct" notion if you want to really address the heart of the issue at hand.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 10:55

Oh, look, someone ACTUALLY knows what affirmative action is. See how much that helps.

Walk into a courtroom and say, there was a difference between their qualifications but I hired the black guy and you WILL get busted.

I know how affirmative action works. I've already mentioned that this talk of "difference between their qualifications" is out of place.

That was what we were talking about. There is a difference between Clinton and Obama.

Yes, and two candidates for a given slot are rarely perfectly identical either.

And the part about race from Soheran is combatted by the evidence. Those voting on race favored Clinton as well.

Looking at what Dempublicents posted, it's clear that racial and gendered voting was rather common across the board.

This suggests that she had something that played well with people who voted on race and gender, non-substantive factors.

No, it doesn't. Just because those two facts correlate doesn't mean there was anything about her that particularly reached out to prejudiced people. The more likely explanation is that white racists voted for her simply because she wasn't Obama.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 11:02

But assuring that those hired from the pool of qualified candidates reflects racial demographics is hardly favouritism…

By that conception, choosing between Clinton and Obama based on which one will better make the body of presidents reflect racial or gender demographics is also not "favouritism."

What, exactly, is your point? I'm not against affirmative action. Are you just splitting hairs about terms? Affirmative action programs do concretely favor minorities over the alternative "colorblind" system, so....

New Malachite Square

03-06-2008, 11:04

Are you just splitting hairs about terms?

Always. :cool:

CanuckHeaven

03-06-2008, 14:49

Whenever you decide the definition of a particular word and refuse to yield it for the purpose of discussion, you cannot "lose" a debate, in the sense that your position will be proved wrong. However, Debate can be Lost, in that dialogue can no longer occur due to a mismatch in protocol.
Amen to that.

In this case, in particular, acknowledging your definition to be common, then obviously you're correct. But we're not interested in whether or not people are adopting a position of subconsciously splitting society into ethnographic groups when they're supporting someone purely on the basis of representing that group, which is patently true - we're interested in the extent to which this represents ethnographic tension, and the phrases "racism" and "sexism" seem more convenient and fluent phrases to use in this context.
You got that right.

I'm sure I've made this point to you before, but strict adherence to "dictionary definition" is not the point of language, nor is it even a reliable sense in which language can be interpreted. You need to be prepared to accept that words can mean different things in different circumstances, and to dismiss this sort of "my way of interpreting the word is necessarily correct" notion if you want to really address the heart of the issue at hand.
I do believe that some people find it difficult to grasp the broader definitions of certain words, which makes it difficult to have meaningful debate.

However, you do realize that some people can NEVER be wrong, because they are ALWAYS right. :rolleyes:

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 15:16

MLK Jr suggested that we choose Presidents by color? Where?

you are misrepresenting what identity politics is, and what is clearly at work in the dem nomination.

but mlk jr. did call loudly and frequently for african americans to organize to take political power for themselves as a community, to use racial solidarity to get black people into all levels of society. see, for example, here (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1139).
he was most certainly in favor of cultivating black leaders to rally behind, just as he was most certainly in favor of creating black-owned banks and newspapers and businesses. this was, in fact, a rather enormous part of his program for achieving equality.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 17:11

aa doesn't go far enough, though it is certainly better than nothing. it is bound by a number of constitutional limitations that we could fix our racial problems more quickly without.

Yes, I'm sure we could reach equality by......getting rid of our Constitutional "limitations" that require it. :rolleyes:

we made no progress on the racial front for a century - lost ground, actually - while not organizing around black identity itself as a positive thing. we have seen this again and again within the context of liberal democracy; you don't make gains without getting in people's faces saying "we're here, we're queer, get fucking used to it!"

....which is not the same as saying, "And vote for us because we're queer."

and the idea that we can't solve a problem by engaging in countervailing action is ludicrous on its face.

Countervailing action is not equivalent to what you are proposing, which is "the exact same action, just in the other direction."

'just giving' once the basic qualifications are met, in line with an egalitarian distribution we would expect given the population. in other words, no longer making up additional hurdles for the disadvantaged to jump through.

...except that isn't what you're doing. Instead, you are removing hurdles just for people with the "right" race or gender.

If you had two men, you wouldn't randomly choose one. You'd look for characteristics that made one more well-suited for the job than the other. But make it a man and a woman and you choose her just for her vagina.

That is far from equality and is no different than choosing the man because he has a penis.

Kamsaki-Myu

03-06-2008, 17:31

I do believe that some people find it difficult to grasp the broader definitions of certain words, which makes it difficult to have meaningful debate.

However, you do realize that some people can NEVER be wrong, because they are ALWAYS right. :rolleyes:
I'm quite tempted to prod your persistent assertion that "Hilary is winning" on that one. :p

But yeah, I understand that the idea of a word as an abstract referent isn't an easy concept for most people to get to grips with - particularly since people have been trained to use words as direct associations - but it's so crucial in bridging the gap between people that we talk on shared terms, even if this means taking a bit of a humbled step back from time to time.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 18:24

i was just saying, mlk jr is more of your dangerous radical type than your liberal reformist.

and he certainly wasn't against a bit of identity politics (http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Where_do_we_go_from_here.html);

So where in there does he say, "Choose your candidates based on race as long as they meet the lowest possible bar"?

Everyone who's posted on this topic agrees with that. The point is, it's not the same thing when voters vote for minority candidates "because of their race/gender/sexual orientation" so as to support equality.

This is like saying, "It's not the same if you break glass to fix it."

Voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation is voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation. It cannot support equality - whether you are voting for a minority or not.

There is logically no difference between voting for someone because he is white and voting for someone because he is black. The action is the same. And the results are the same - your candidate is chosen based on race, rather than qualifications.

Not to mention the fact that it is completely counter-productive. Voting for someone because of such factors does nothing but feed the idea that they cannot do it on their own - that they are not equal.

What a way to conflate things. Obviously you are not supporting equality if you are reinforcing the overrepresentation of whites in politics. But you might be supporting equality if you are instead undermining the underrepresentation of women in politics.

Not if you're doing it based on the fact that they are women.

If you have virtually equivalent candidates and you choose a woman over a man, you are undermining underrepresentation of women. But making gender an important consideration does the exact opposite. It justifies the position of those who think that women cannot make it in politics on their own.

Different cases. Different justifications. Different judgment.

...still judgment based on sex. Still, therefore, sexism.

So? Plenty of people voted for Obama because of his race...

Yes. And they were acting in a racist manner.

But more people who voted based on race voted for Clinton. As did more people who voted based on gender.

and more to the point, in neither case is the decision problematic, because the differences between the two are non-substantive and the advantage to equality to be garnered by having a black or female president is potentially significant.

Such an advantage only exists if, in addition to being black or female, said person is also the best candidate. There is no advantage garnered by putting someone in position based more on their sex or skin color than on their own qualifications.

Looking at what Dempublicents posted, it's clear that racial and gendered voting was rather common across the board.

Both skewed much more towards Clinton - often by higher margins and definitely in more states.

Personally, I was appalled by how many people were choosing candidates based on such criteria.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 18:24

Yes, I'm sure we could reach equality by......getting rid of our Constitutional "limitations" that require it. :rolleyes:

the constitutional limitations require a somewhat hollow procedural equality which sometimes finds itself in opposition to achieving an end-point equality. especially as it has historically been read by the powers that be. there is nothing mysterious or even all that odd about this sort of fact. it happens all the time. i mean, the idea that the law equally requires that neither the rich nor the poor to sleep under the bridge has been noted for centuries as an example of where the distinction matters.

....which is not the same as saying, "And vote for us because we're queer."

except that they do wind up saying exactly that - getting openly gay politicians into office has always been on the agenda of any group that believes in electoralism, as has been pointing out the lack of such as a wrong to be corrected as quickly as possible.

Countervailing action is not equivalent to what you are proposing, which is "the exact same action, just in the other direction."

even if that was what i was proposing (and it isn't, since both the motivations and outcomes are radically different - if they are the same then murder and self defense are the same), countervailing means precisely to take action in the opposite direction.

If you had two men, you wouldn't randomly choose one. You'd look for characteristics that made one more well-suited for the job than the other. But make it a man and a woman and you choose her just for her vagina.

That is far from equality and is no different than choosing the man because he has a penis.

if we have the opportunity to advance the cause of equality by addressing underrepresentation with a qualified candidate, then we ought do so. the social benefit of doing so vastly outweighs the social benefit of looking more minutely at two candidates who both are qualified to attempt to find some tiny difference between them to base a decision off of.

the fact of the matter is that the definition of racism and sexism that both you and J are using makes mlk jr's well-known and widely accepted and notably successful path towards equality a horrifically racist one. i find this to be prima facie evidence that your definition is fundamentally flawed and, frankly, utterly worthless.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 18:42

You might start a new thread at this point. This is about to be a full out hijack.

You could argue that this is the most life this thread has had, especially since (and I called this) you can't really separate the primary discussion and the polls, especially since all CH has left, despite the fact that they are unconvincing.

But, I'm pretty sure identity politics is its own discussion that, honestly, many NSGers would participate in if it wasn't masquerading as a thread about American election polls...

i've asked for a split over in moderation

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 19:02

the constitutional limitations require a somewhat hollow procedural equality which sometimes finds itself in opposition to achieving an end-point equality.

Sure, if your endpoint is "the same number of people, regardless of qualification."

The endpoint of a fight for equality has nothing to do with quotas or numbers - it is that every person is treated equally, regardless of irrelevant traits.

except that they do wind up saying exactly that - getting openly gay politicians into office has always been on the agenda of any group that believes in electoralism, as has been pointing out the lack of such as a wrong to be corrected as quickly as possible.

The wrong isn't the lack of openly gay politicians in office. The wrong is the unequal treatment of such politicians. If they are treated equally and defeated, no wrong has occurred.

even if that was what i was proposing (and it isn't, since both the motivations and outcomes are radically different - if they are the same then murder and self defense are the same), countervailing means precisely to take action in the opposite direction.

It doesn't matter if the motivations are different. The action and reasoning is the same. You are saying that we should choose based on genitalia. The fact that you say it should be a vagina instead of a penis doesn't change that fact.

And countervailing means you take action to stop something. If you wish to stop speeding on the roads, you don't start speeding in the opposite direction. You stop speeding.

if we have the opportunity to advance the cause of equality by addressing underrepresentation with a qualified candidate, then we ought do so.

Only if that candidate is the most qualified or equally qualified.

the social benefit of doing so vastly outweighs the social benefit of looking more minutely at two candidates who both are qualified to attempt to find some tiny difference between them to base a decision off of.

(a) You don't need to find a "tiny" difference. There are plenty of very evident ones.

(b) There is no social benefit to choosing people for jobs based on their genitalia or skin color. In fact, that is supposedly exactly what we are trying to combat.

the fact of the matter is that the definition of racism and sexism that both you and J are using makes mlk jr's well-known and widely accepted and notably successful path towards equality a horrifically racist one. i find this to be prima facie evidence that your definition is fundamentally flawed and, frankly, utterly worthless.

So you can show me where he said, "Pick any candidate who is black, so long as he meets the lowest possible bar"?

There is a difference between seeking equality and what you are doing - which is seeking advantages. There certainly are people who have taken MLK's message and taken it to mean that we should turn the tables completely, just as there are "feminists" who do the same. But I think it's rather insulting to MLK, Jr. to suggest that it was what he espoused. Seeking political empowerment for black people is not the same as "Fill some seats with black people, never mind if they're the best candidates."

Tmutarakhan

03-06-2008, 19:58

So you can show me where he said, "Pick any candidate who is black, so long as he meets the lowest possible bar"?

Can you show me where FreeSoviets said anything like that, either?

Let's pretend I am choosing between Obama and Hillary, a few months ago, before my attitudes got poisoned by all the nonsense that has come down recently. At the time, I preferred Hillary's position on health care, Obama's position on Iraq; I preferred Hillary's better familiarity with the major leagues, Obama's talents at remaining civil when talking to rivals; my actual favorite among the candidates was Edwards, but since I lived in Michigan I voted for Kucinich; pretend I was forced to choose between Hillary and Obama.

On the "qualifications" did I really have any major reason to favor one over the other? Not as far as I was concerned; on 99% of the issues they were the same (and obviously better than any Republican); there were obvious differences, but with pluses and minuses on either side. I would have voted for Obama, thinking that electing a black man would have been a more important precedent than electing the first woman. Obviously, if there were a viable gay candidate for President ("viable" meaning, not just electable in the United States which I can hardly expect to see in this lifetime, but viable for me personally, that is, matching up well on the issues against other candidates, as Hillary and Obama did), I would be thrilled to vote my own identity politics.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 20:09

Can you show me where FreeSoviets said anything like that, either?

This thread. Go back to my hiring analogy. Free Soviet's argument was that as long as the applicant is adequate - as long as they meet the bar at which you would hire them if they were the only applicant - you should hire them based on minority status.

*snip*

What you describe there is a different situation. In that situation, you aren't just looking for "adequate" and then choosing based on sex, sexuality, or ethnicity. You looked for differences between the candidates, found nothing to really differentiate them, and only then considered minority status. The minority status wasn't the main factor. It wasn't even an important factor. It was just the last thing you had to go on.

Suppose, on the other hand, that you liked Clinton's policies better, but found Obama's to be "adequate." In other words, you'd vote for Obama if he were the only Dem candidate. But then you said, "Oh, but he's black and we really need a black person in office. I'll vote for him because of that."

That would be racist. It would be just as racist as voting for a white candidate you found to be merely adequate on policies because he was white, while the black candidate had better ones.

Or suppose that, like Free Soviets suggests, you didn't even look at their policies. They're both Democrats, so they're adequate. So you don't even bother with comparisons on the relevant points. Instead, you just say, "Black is more important than female, so I'm going for black." That would be very racist, akin to voting for the white guy just because the other guy is black.

In both of the latter possibilities, you choose based on minority status, instead of using minority status when all other comparisons have run out.

Soheran

03-06-2008, 20:19

This is like saying, "It's not the same if you break glass to fix it."

Not at all.

What's the concrete effect of supporting black candidates in a racially stratified society? More proportionate representation of blacks in politics--that is, more racial equality.

Voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation is voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation. It cannot support equality - whether you are voting for a minority or not.

There is logically no difference between voting for someone because he is white and voting for someone because he is black.

Yes, there is. The trouble is that "based on" is misleading terminology: it doesn't tell us why race is being used as a factor.

If I vote for black candidates simply because they are black in a strict logical sense--if I would do the same even in a reversed world where blacks are the dominant social grouping and whites are the marginalized ones--then I am indeed behaving in a racist way. But if the significance of the candidate's "blackness" is not the race itself but the fact that it indicates membership in a subordinated group, a subordinated group I may identify with and whose interests I might justifiably want to see succeed, there's nothing whatsoever racist about voting for that candidate on that basis.

A poll simply asking whether "race" is an important factor takes no notice of this distinction.

The action is the same. And the results are the same - your candidate is chosen based on race, rather than qualifications.

In plenty of decisions, especially one in an election where the differences are as non-substantive as this one, deciding based upon whatever minor differences in "qualification" there might be is hardly any less arbitrary.

Of course, where there are major, significant differences, you choose based on those. Nobody's questioned this.

Not to mention the fact that it is completely counter-productive. Voting for someone because of such factors does nothing but feed the idea that they cannot do it on their own - that they are not equal.

While the righteous path of "colorblindness" ensures that they never will be.

Sorry, this argument has never held much water for me.

Not if you're doing it based on the fact that they are women.

How else could you actively seek to end the underrepresentation of women?

If you have virtually equivalent candidates and you choose a woman over a man, you are undermining underrepresentation of women. But making gender an important consideration does the exact opposite.

Judgments of "importance" are relative. If the candidates are already more or less equivalent, what ordinarily is arbitrary and unimportant becomes a significant factor.

Such an advantage only exists if, in addition to being black or female, said person is also the best candidate.

You assume that such a judgment is always clear.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 20:28

Of course, where there are major, significant differences, you choose based on those.

see 'alan keyes'

Tmutarakhan

03-06-2008, 20:33

This thread. Go back to my hiring analogy. Free Soviet's argument was that as long as the applicant is adequate - as long as they meet the bar at which you would hire them if they were the only applicant - you should hire them based on minority status.
That is what you accused him of arguing. That is not how I understood what he wrote.
You looked for differences between the candidates, found nothing to really differentiate them, and only then considered minority status. The minority status wasn't the main factor. It wasn't even an important factor. It was just the last thing you had to go on.
I found LOTS to differentiate them. I chose to consider the minority status as the decisive factor, even though I could have chosen any of the factors as decisive.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 20:34

Not at all.

What's the concrete effect of supporting black candidates in a racially stratified society? More proportionate representation of blacks in politics--that is, more racial equality.

No, it's more racial representation. Representation and equality are not the same.

Again, the end goal here is not "more black politicians." If it is, that is a racist goal.

The end goal is that race doesn't matter. You aren't going to achieve that goal by making a big deal of race - whether for a minority race or a majority one.

Yes, there is. The trouble is that "based on" is misleading terminology: it doesn't tell us why race is being used as a factor.

Nor does it matter. One way or another, you are trying to promote someone based on race, rather than relevant factors like qualification.

It may be more cuddly to do it because they are a traditionally disadvantaged race, but it is still choosing based on race.

And choosing based on race is in direct contradiction to choosing without regard to race. Thus, it is in direct contradiction to racial equality.

In plenty of decisions, especially one in an election where the differences are as non-substantive as this one, deciding based upon whatever minor differences in "qualification" there might be is hardly any less arbitrary.

There are plenty of substantive differences.

Of course, where there are major, significant differences, you choose based on those. Nobody's questioned this.

Like policy differences? Like different approaches to the political process?

Oh wait, that's right. "Major, significant differences" has to mean that they aren't even adequate.

While the righteous path of "colorblindness" ensures that they never will be.

Sorry, this argument has never held much water for me.

And the argument of choosing someone based on having a vagina or a darker skin color somehow making them "more equal" has never held much water with me.

Like I told Free Soviets, if you want to give me a job because I have a vagina, I'll tell you where you can shove it.

How else could you actively seek to end the underrepresentation of women?

(a) By choosing the best candidate, regardless of the genitalia they possess.
(b) By choosing the underrepresented class when all other distinctions have been exhausted.

You assume that such a judgment is always clear.

No. But it doesn't have to be if you just choose based on vaginas or dark skin without even looking.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 20:38

see 'alan keyes'

Ah, so "major differences" has to mean "polar opposite."

No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

That is what you accused him of arguing. That is not how I understood what he wrote.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13739048&postcount=281

His exact words. So long as either would be acceptable if they were the only applicant, it is perfectly appropriate to ignore all other distinctions and choose based on genitalia.

I found LOTS to differentiate them. I chose to consider the minority status as the decisive factor, even though I could have chosen any of the factors as decisive.

Correction, you didn't find anything that made you consider one of them a better candidate. But you did look. And you used minority status, based on your description, only when you failed to find it looking at their actual policies.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 20:43

That is what you accused him of arguing. That is not how I understood what he wrote.

to be fair, i was perhaps unclear in my exact wording. i, and presumably you, didn't mentally put the emphasis on 'only applicant' like dem did, but on the being perfectly acceptable for the position. putting the emphasis on 'only' does make it sound as though they would only get it if there was no other option, out of desperation rather than merit. and that is not at all what i intended.

Free Soviets

03-06-2008, 20:49

Again, the end goal here is not "more black politicians." If it is, that is a racist goal.

and once again, operation breadbasket must therefore have been a horribly 'racist' program by noted 'racist' agitator mlk jr.

your use of the term is either wrong, or being 'racist' is quite often a positive good in the world. there are no other options.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 20:56

to be fair, i was perhaps unclear in my exact wording. i, and presumably you, didn't mentally put the emphasis on 'only applicant' like dem did, but on the being perfectly acceptable for the position. putting the emphasis on 'only' does make it sound as though they would only get it if there was no other option, out of desperation rather than merit. and that is not at all what i intended.

"Perfectly acceptable" = "bare minimum." You would hire them if they were the only option, because they meet the absolute lowest bar - the bare minimum. Otherwise, you'd keep looking.

If you had two men, both "perfectly acceptable", how would you choose between them?

Suppose, for instance, you needed a Java programmer with at least 3 years experience. You have two candidates. Both can code in Java. A has 3 years experience. B has 6. A has only coding experience, while B also has administrative experience.

Both candidates are "perfectly acceptable." They meet the basic requirements for the job. But one candidate has qualifications above and beyond the basic, and is still applying for the job. Which do you choose?

Soheran

03-06-2008, 20:57

The end goal is that race doesn't matter. You aren't going to achieve that goal by making a big deal of race - whether for a minority race or a majority one.

Disingenuous nonsense. The only way you solve any problem is by giving it particular attention, not by being blind to its existence. You build a political program capable of undermining racial inequality by focusing on those areas where race is already a factor--like political representation--and actively counterbalancing them.

What that means for choosing candidates is that you seek to end underrepresentation. You do that by supporting candidates of the underrepresented groups.

Nor does it matter. One way or another, you are trying to promote someone based on race, rather than relevant factors like qualification.

It may be more cuddly to do it because they are a traditionally disadvantaged race, but it is still choosing based on race.

Are you interested in making a real argument at all? Or just in repeating the same thing over and over again?

And choosing based on race is in direct contradiction to choosing without regard to race. Thus, it is in direct contradiction to racial equality.

Only if you are willfully blind to context. Does welfare strengthen class inequality simply because it is means-tested?

There are plenty of substantive differences.

No, there aren't. That's precisely why this primary has lasted so unbearingly long, and has been full of such petty pedantry.

Like policy differences?

Which ones? Quibbles about health care? As if any president's plan is going to get through Congress unaltered, anyway....

Like different approaches to the political process?

Political style is hardly a more substantive basis than race.

Like I told Free Soviets, if you want to give me a job because I have a vagina, I'll tell you where you can shove it.

And all those racial minorities who support and accept affirmative action benefits are... what? Internalized racists?

(a) By choosing the best candidate, regardless of the genitalia they possess.
(b) By choosing the underrepresented class when all other distinctions have been exhausted.

And if some of those distinctions are non-substantive?

No. But it doesn't have to be if you just choose based on vaginas or dark skin without even looking.

This is a straw man, as you know.

Dempublicents1

03-06-2008, 22:48

and once again, operation breadbasket must therefore have been a horribly 'racist' program by noted 'racist' agitator mlk jr.

Hard to tell just from what's in your link. The program could be promoting the hiring of people based on their blackness with the end goal being simply more black people in the job. That sort of program is racist, and even though it may be done out of a wish for racial equality, it is counter-productive. Such a program invariably results in less qualified minorities getting jobs, which breeds contempt and further racism from those with majority status.

Or, it could be that he was talking about something very akin to modern affirmative action programs. Since skin color doesn't inherently make you better or worse at a job, the use of ratios is a decent measure of whether or not hiring practices are fair. And encouraging businesses that are behind in that to actively hire/promote highly qualified black applicants would be a good thing.

Given MLK's own words in other contexts, I would guess that the program was closer to the latter.

As he himself said:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I don't see those as empty words.

Disingenuous nonsense. The only way you solve any problem is by giving it particular attention, not by being blind to its existence.

One need not choose based on race or gender to give the problem attention. There are all sorts of ways to address the problem that don't amount to doing the exact same thing you are decrying.

But, if you'd really like to claim that the end goal is just more black butts in the seats, you make that claim all you like. I will continue to contend that the goal is actual equality.

Only if you are willfully blind to context. Does welfare strengthen class inequality simply because it is means-tested?

Actually, welfare strengthens class inequality because it doesn't do anything to combat it and actually makes it more difficult for people to move into higher classes. It gives welfare recipients just enough to survive without seeing to it that they can move up and, in fact, punishes them for trying.

Much like your version of "racial equality", it misses the point. It strives for the quick fix in a way that not only fails to address the real issue, but makes it worse.

No, there aren't. That's precisely why this primary has lasted so unbearingly long, and has been full of such petty pedantry.

Yes, there are. Maybe you haven't bothered to actually examine the candidates, but I have.

This primary has lasted unbearingly long largely because Clinton has been claiming all sorts of nonsense about why she wasn't winning. And it's been full of petty pedantry because that's what so much of the electorate wants to see. No one can be bothered to actually look at the candidates in any real detail. They'd rather argue over whether or not it's better to vote for the woman or the black man than to actually look at the candidates in any depth. Personally, I don't find that to be a good thing.

Which ones? Quibbles about health care? As if any president's plan is going to get through Congress unaltered, anyway....

Health care, foreign policy, LGBT issues, economic policy. You name it. The differences are there for anyone to see - if they bother to look. Similar does not mean "the same" and one does not need to see polar opposites to find substantive differences.

And the differences in their plans reveal differences about their views on the role of government, something that should be important in choosing an elected leader.

Political style is hardly a more substantive basis than race.

Really? And here I thought we were talking about a political office. I'm sure that someone's approach to how to get things done in that office can't possibly be a factor in their effectiveness, right?

Next you'll tell me that I should be chosen for a scientist position based on my vagina, rather for my actual labwork. I mean, the way I actually conduct myself in the lab and the fact that I have a vagina are clearly equally relevant.

And all those racial minorities who support and accept affirmative action benefits are... what? Internalized racists?

Luckily, affirmative action doesn't work that way. It uses minority status as a tiebreaker, not a substantive factor in hiring.

Luckily, using race or gender as a substantive factor is illegal.

And if some of those distinctions are non-substantive?

Well, when your definition of "non-substantive" is "not polar opposite", I can see where you have a problem.

This is a straw man, as you know.

Not at all. Free Soviets flat-out stated that he wouldn't look at a resume beyond the sex of the applicant as long as they were "acceptable" and one of them had a vagina.

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 04:16

"Perfectly acceptable" = "bare minimum."
The two are not the same thing at all. It would be one thing if you just misunderstood what Free Soviets meant, and then accepted it when he told you that he didn't mean what you thought he meant, but it is totally absurd when you presume to tell him what he means by his own words, and berate me for "misunderstanding" him to mean what he says he means, rather than what you say he means.
Health care, foreign policy, LGBT issues, economic policy. You name it. The differences are there for anyone to see - if they bother to look. Similar does not mean "the same" and one does not need to see polar opposites to find substantive differences.

And the differences in their plans reveal differences about their views on the role of government, something that should be important in choosing an elected leader.
As I was trying to say before, any one of those substantive differences COULD have been my deciding factor, if I chose one of them to focus on rather than the others. But since there were a lot of such differences, not one of them particularly more crucial than any of the others, some of them cutting one way and some of them cutting another, the difference which I would have considered to be the stand-out factor for deciding would be: is it more important that women, or blacks, finally get representation at the top level? You think it is reprehensible for me to be thinking about such things, rather than picking one of the other issues at random and deciding "OK, THAT is the one I will pretend is singularly crucial"; but I am far from the only person to think this way, get used to it.
Free Soviets flat-out stated that ...
No. He didn't. You flat-out read into him the strawman you wanted to fight against.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 06:26

As I was trying to say before, any one of those substantive differences COULD have been my deciding factor, if I chose one of them to focus on rather than the others. But since there were a lot of such differences, not one of them particularly more crucial than any of the others, some of them cutting one way and some of them cutting another, the difference which I would have considered to be the stand-out factor for deciding would be: is it more important that women, or blacks, finally get representation at the top level? You think it is reprehensible for me to be thinking about such things, rather than picking one of the other issues at random and deciding "OK, THAT is the one I will pretend is singularly crucial"; but I am far from the only person to think this way, get used to it.

I think it's reprehensible to vote for reasons other than one's opinion of a candidate's policy stances.

And why people would not vote on policy stances is beyond me.

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 06:26

I think it's reprehensible to vote for reasons other than one's opinion of a candidate's policy stances.

And why people would not vote on policy stances is beyond me.

You mean you wouldn't vote for a gay candidate if a straight one had better policies, even if the gay candidate would be acceptable without the straight candidate around?

*gasp*

Doesn't that make you some sort of traitor or something?

;)

Granted, if you have examined political stances in depth, and it still hasn't led to the choice of a candidate, I could see using minority
status as a factor - just as I could see using it as a tiebreaker in other instances. It's the mentality that something like this should be an important factor that gets me. If used at all, it should be a final factor - one you use when the other options have run out - one you use not just when both candidates meet some bare minimum, but instead when you truly can't find any other reason to choose one over the other.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 06:32

You mean you wouldn't vote for a gay candidate if a straight one had better policies, even if the gay candidate would be acceptable without the straight candidate around?

*gasp*

Doesn't that make you some sort of traitor or something?

;)
Hehehehe. :D No, I would not vote for someone like Andrew Sullivan.

If my treachery is directed at idiots, all the better.

I would vote for the straight candidate if s/he were better on queer issues. Of course, queer issues isn't the only part of politics that I care about.

I voted for Obama because he didn't not support the war and because he didn't support the Flag Protection Act of 2005.

The point is that if you're not here to vote on policy stances, then you are an idiot, because voting is self-defense.

EDIT: To respond to your edit, if the two hypothetical candidates agreed on the issues, and I agreed with them on the issues, and one was queer and the other straight, I would vote for the queer candidate. But it would only be for the purposes of tie-breaking, as you say. Because voting on anything other than policies first is fuck retarded.

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 07:14

I think it's reprehensible to vote for reasons other than one's opinion of a candidate's policy stances.

And why people would not vote on policy stances is beyond me.
There are many, many factors that can be more important than "stances". A candidate who has excellent stances on policy issues may have zero ability to implement any of them. Intelligence is an obvious factor: the stances that W took in the original 2000 campaign were not nearly as objectionable as the stances he has taken since, but I rejected him from the outset as an obvious dumbshit who would clearly be manipulable and likely to create disasters; lack of intelligence can be overcome, as in the case of Eisenhower, who was by all accounts not the sharpest tool in the shed but very skilled at getting brighter people to work harmoniously for him (as opposed to W, who chooses subordinates strictly for sycophantic loyalty); experience and personality are very important too.

In the case of Clinton and Obama, both are obviously intelligent (a wash, there). A point in Clinton's favor, as I said, is that she was experienced at the major-league level; never mind whether "First Lady" really counts as "political experience", the fact that she already knows a lot of CEO's, and Arab emirs, and yes lobbyists, and so on, is important; it will take time for Obama to get up to speed about who you have to talk to to get things done. A point against her is that her personality can be abrasive, where Obama seems naturally suited to talking the birds down out of the trees; I considered Clinton's health-insurance "stance" superior, but her ability to get any of it implemented is questionable in view of how badly her previous effort to ram such a policy through turned out.

And YES, the very identity is an important factor. The *existence* of gay mayors in some of the suburbs hereabouts has been very helpful to our issues: it forces Republicans on City Councils to understand that we are actually ordinary people, not demons out to molest their kids and burn down their churches and destroy their family values with our evil thought-rays, but guys who also prefer good local schools and low crime rates and high property values. Mind you, the first one was elected on a platform of reforming zoning ordinances to be more pro-business (in a run-down former bedroom community for factory workers, which had acquired a fair number of gays among the yuppies who moved in to take advantage of the quaint fixer-upper houses available for cheap); he decidedly did not run as the "queer candidate", but benefited from block-voting on his behalf from people who knew that having him in office would not only make the town "fabulous" (and newly prosperous), but help our issues JUST BECAUSE OF WHO HE WAS.

Yes indeed, I think the sheer existence of a President Obama will greatly impact racial issues in this country; the existence of a Candidate Obama already has.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 07:21

There are many, many factors that can be more important than "stances". A candidate who has excellent stances on policy issues may have zero ability to implement any of them.

The ability to implement policies in legislative form also depends on pandering to people who are evil and who want "compromise."

The bureaucracy is a different animal.

Intelligence is an obvious factor: the stances that W took in the original 2000 campaign were not nearly as objectionable as the stances he has taken since, but I rejected him from the outset as an obvious dumbshit who would clearly be manipulable and likely to create disasters; lack of intelligence can be overcome, as in the case of Eisenhower, who was by all accounts not the sharpest tool in the shed but very skilled at getting brighter people to work harmoniously for him (as opposed to W, who chooses subordinates strictly for sycophantic loyalty);

Perhaps in general, but not this election specifically.

experience and personality are very important too.

Not in comparison to policy stances. Experienced, likeable people are often evil, or in support of the wrong policies.

Ron Paul is a very nice guy, but his policies don't come close to cutting it.

And YES, the very identity is an important factor. The *existence* of gay mayors in some of the suburbs hereabouts has been very helpful to our issues: it forces Republicans on City Councils to understand that we are actually ordinary people, not demons out to molest their kids and burn down their churches and destroy their family values with our evil thought-rays, but guys who also prefer good local schools and low crime rates and high property values. Mind you, the first one was elected on a platform of reforming zoning ordinances to be more pro-business (in a run-down former bedroom community for factory workers, which had acquired a fair number of gays among the yuppies who moved in to take advantage of the quaint fixer-upper houses available for cheap); he decidedly did not run as the "queer candidate", but benefited from block-voting on his behalf from people who knew that having him in office would not only make the town "fabulous" (and newly prosperous), but help our issues JUST BECAUSE OF WHO HE WAS.

Yes indeed, I think the sheer existence of a President Obama will greatly impact racial issues in this country; the existence of a Candidate Obama already has.
Well, I wouldn't vote for Andrew Sullivan, so there.

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 08:17

Well, I wouldn't vote for Andrew Sullivan, so there.
Neither would I. Shall we shake hands and part as friends now that we have found one point of agreement?

Free Soviets

04-06-2008, 15:23

I think it's reprehensible to vote for reasons other than one's opinion of a candidate's policy stances.

And why people would not vote on policy stances is beyond me.

nobody's policy stances are even vaguely close to mine. but some people's are horrifically worse than others, and any thoughts i had of the two usian parties being so close as makes no difference were destroyed by the bush administration's crimes against humanity and freedom. so self defense tactics compel me to vote democratic. but they also compel me to vote for candidates who might actually win and accomplish things. kucinich just ain't an effective campaigner or politician, for example. and so i frequently have to ignore even the wings of the party that are the tiniest bit closer to me in favor of the wings i like slightly less on policy.

it is always about acceptability thresholds and strategy. this is politics, after all - it is always going to be based on coalitions and compromise. but having accepted those compromises and joined those coalitions, how am i to further decide between people? i am going to advance what causes i legitimately believe i can. and ending the underrepresentation of some discriminated against group is as noble a cause as you can easily come across.

now, if i were a member of one of said underrepresented groups, i cannot help but believe that i would tend towards prioritizing my own, given the option. this is perfectly understandable and acceptable. especially among the activist base that gets all involved in these sorts of things; they were actually personally involved in the direct fight to get where we are today over the past few decades, they fought for civil rights or women's liberation to make this very sort of thing possible. who can possibly blame them for attempting to make it actual?

and while they may have said that race or sex was important, even most important, we know that this isn't literally true, we know that a candidate would need to meet other, more basic criteria for them to be considered by almost all of those people. otherwise elizabeth dole and alan keyes would have done much much better in their presidential runs.

Chumblywumbly

04-06-2008, 16:03

Yes, it is. When you choose people by gender, you are a sexist. Full stop. When you choose people by race, you are a racist. Full stop.
I am shooting a film, and I have two characters who's roles need to be filled. One is a white woman, the other is a black man; their sex and skin colour is crucial to the film's plot.

Why would choosing a white woman to play the white woman's part, and choosing a black man to play the black man's part be racist or sexist?

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 16:13

Obviously it depends on the case of the individual. If the voter was to chose Clinton or Obama for egalitarian reasons, it would NOT be sexist or racist because it is NOT based on the idea that blacks or women are inferior to whites and men. Having said that, voting based on gender or race purely for egalitarian reasons is an incredibly silly thing to do.

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 18:12

kucinich just ain't an effective campaigner or politician, for example. and so i frequently have to ignore even the wings of the party that are the tiniest bit closer to me in favor of the wings i like slightly less on policy.
I actually did vote for Kucinich. But if we had had a real primary, I don't think I would have (it would have been between Edwards and Obama for me).

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 18:44

There are many, many factors that can be more important than "stances". A candidate who has excellent stances on policy issues may have zero ability to implement any of them.

This is true. Hence the reason I place emphasis on how they plan on getting things done.l

Of course, Soheran told me that such things are "non-substantive."

Obviously it depends on the case of the individual. If the voter was to chose Clinton or Obama for egalitarian reasons, it would NOT be sexist or racist because it is NOT based on the idea that blacks or women are inferior to whites and men. Having said that, voting based on gender or race purely for egalitarian reasons is an incredibly silly thing to do.

You guys keep using this word and so I figured I'd look it up just to make sure I wasn't wrong about the definition.

Egalitarian:
–adjective
1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.
–noun
2. a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.

The equality of all people. That's a nice phrase. It suggests that people should be treated equally, regardless of irrelevant traits.

People who vote based on sex or race may be hoping for egalitarianism, but their actions in no way support it.

Again, equality does not mean "female/black/Latino/LGBT butts in the seats". It means that people are treated equally, regardless of such traits. Equality in number is a hollow sort of equality - and making that your goal does nothing but add justification for bigotry.

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 18:49

You guys keep using this word and so I figured I'd look it up just to make sure I wasn't wrong about the definition.

Egalitarian:
–adjective
1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.
–noun
2. a person who adheres to egalitarian beliefs.

The equality of all people. That's a nice phrase. It suggests that people should be treated equally, regardless of irrelevant traits.

People who vote based on sex or race may be hoping for egalitarianism, but their actions in no way support it.

Again, equality does not mean "female/black/Latino/LGBT butts in the seats". It means that people are treated equally, regardless of such traits. Equality in number is a hollow sort of equality - and making that your goal does nothing but add justification for bigotry.

Whether it works and helps promote equality or hinder it is irrelevant, if your motive is future equality, rather than based on the idea that the other gender or race is inferior, then it cannot by definition be bigoted, since the whole definition of bigoted is centred around the belief that certain cultures/races/genders are inferior.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 19:08

I actually did vote for Kucinich.
Excellent choice. He was the best candidate on almost all the issues for the Democratic Party.

This is true. Hence the reason I place emphasis on how they plan on getting things done.

Implementation of policy is important, but I would rather see good policy fail than unacceptable/compromised policy get implemented.

Clinton would have implemented policies. It's just that they would have been morally wrong.

I still assert policy's primacy.

Again, equality does not mean "female/black/Latino/LGBT butts in the seats". It means that people are treated equally, regardless of such traits. Equality in number is a hollow sort of equality - and making that your goal does nothing but add justification for bigotry.
Truth factor.

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:14

Whether it works and helps promote equality or hinder it is irrelevant, if your motive is future equality, rather than based on the idea that the other gender or race is inferior, then it cannot by definition be bigoted, since the whole definition of bigoted is centred around the belief that certain cultures/races/genders are inferior.

No, it isn't. A belief about inferiority is often a part of bigotry, but it is not strictly necessary.

Let's look up a few more definitions, shall we?

Racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Sexism

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Bigotry can refer to discrimination based on sex, race, sexuality, etc. This is most often directed towards a disadvantaged group, but does not have to be.

By your definition, a person who says, "A woman's place is in the home and a man's is as the breadwinner" is not sexist so long as he values both jobs equally. Is that really the definition you want to use?

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 19:15

Again, equality does not mean "female/black/Latino/LGBT butts in the seats".
That's not all it means, but as long as there AREN'T any, and NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY, then the assumption that there CAN'T be any remains the default. No candidate who is openly atheist could get enough backing to run in the primaries, because "atheists can't possibly win", right? That is pretty much taken for granted-- just as it would have been considered inconceivable for a gay candidate to win, not very long ago, or for that matter, for a divorced candidate to win, within my memory.
It means that people are treated equally, regardless of such traits.
I do agree with you here. George Will had a good remark recently, "It was a landmark when Frank Robinson became the first black general manager in major league baseball; but an even more important landmark came two years later, when he was the first black general manager to be fired. That meant he really was being treated just like anyone else!"

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 19:18

Excellent choice. [Kucinich] was the best candidate on almost all the issues for the Democratic Party.
Indeed. But he would have been a terrible President, if the acrimonious meltdown he provoked in Cleveland is any measure.

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 19:19

By your definition, a person who says, "A woman's place is in the home and a man's is as the breadwinner" is not sexist so long as he values both jobs equally. Is that really the definition you want to use?

Actually that is sexist because it is still based on the belief that women are fundamentally different from men, so perhaps I should change my definition a bit, bigoted beliefs are based on ones where race or sex are unequal. With your definition though, Chumbly's example would be sexist.

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:20

Implementation of policy is important, but I would rather see good policy fail than unacceptable/compromised policy get implemented.

Oh, I agree. But I do think that implementation is important.

Clinton would have implemented policies. It's just that they would have been morally wrong.

Some. But on some policies, she was advocating much the same thing as Obama. She just planned on going about it different. She takes a much more aggressive, "let's fight" sort of policy on many things. She was constantly talking about how she'd fight the Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, works to get things done by working with everyone - whether they agree with him or not. He isn't fighting the Republicans. He's working out disagreements with them.

Sometimes, she advocates pretty much the same policy as him, but wants to keep it all behind closed doors. The policy is good, but it shouldn't be discussed in public. Obama embraces a more transparent government.

Personally, I think working with people with a different viewpoint, rather than making it all into an "us vs. them" fight works better. I think transparency in government is of the utmost importance. So even if I hadn't seen enough differences in their policies to choose a candidate, that difference in style would have pushed Obama over the topl.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 19:25

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:25

Actually that is sexist because it is still based on the belief that women are fundamentally different from men, so perhaps I should change my definition a bit, bigoted beliefs are based on ones where race or sex are unequal. With your definition though, Chumbly's example would be sexist.

Not at all. In Chumbly's example, his choices require the biological difference. He isn't doing it because he thinks that a white woman or a black man can't act. He's doing it because he knows that a white woman cannot be a black man.

Discrimination based in actual biological differences is not bigoted. But those choices exist only in a limited subset. For example, if a woman came in to have her genitals examined, a doctor might pull out a speculum. For a man, she wouldn't. That isn't sexism. It is necessitated by the basic biological differences between male and female.

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 19:30

I seem to recall reading radical feminists who said women and men are different. It seems to me that the belief only becomes sexist when we start valuing and asserting the primacy of certain differences over others.

Different in terms of their 'roles' and what they are capable of, not different in terms of their biological make up.

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:31

That's not all it means,

Your words are out of order. The correct statement would be "That's not what it means at all."

but as long as there AREN'T any, and NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY, then the assumption that there CAN'T be any remains the default.

....a default that is only strengthened by voting for that person because of the trait in question. These people already believe that a person with a given trait cannot possibly win a position on her own merits. You only back that up by giving it based on the same trait.

I do agree with you here. George Will had a good remark recently, "It was a landmark when Frank Robinson became the first black general manager in major league baseball; but an even more important landmark came two years later, when he was the first black general manager to be fired. That meant he really was being treated just like anyone else!"

Precisely!

And if we don't give minority candidates the same level of examination we would use if there were no minority candidates, we are not treating them like everyone else.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 19:31

Oh, I agree. But I do think that implementation is important.

That's fair.

Some. But on some policies, she was advocating much the same thing as Obama. She just planned on going about it different. She takes a much more aggressive, "let's fight" sort of policy on many things. She was constantly talking about how she'd fight the Republicans. Obama, on the other hand, works to get things done by working with everyone - whether they agree with him or not. He isn't fighting the Republicans. He's working out disagreements with them.

You're correct that they were almost the same on most issues. I just sort of let that leave my consideration and focus on the differences. For example, I think her introduction of the Flag Protection Act of 2005 was immoral, and it demonstrates that she is not really in favor of free expression.

Sometimes, she advocates pretty much the same policy as him, but wants to keep it all behind closed doors. The policy is good, but it shouldn't be discussed in public. Obama embraces a more transparent government.

Personally, I think working with people with a different viewpoint, rather than making it all into an "us vs. them" fight works better. I think transparency in government is of the utmost importance. So even if I hadn't seen enough differences in their policies to choose a candidate, that difference in style would have pushed Obama over the top.
I agree that transparency is super important. This is a time in which the Federal Government is illegitimately empowered to secretly torture and murder people, making it the most powerful terrorist organization in the West. Whether we can reclaim it has yet to be seen.

One of the things that impressed me about Obama was where he agreed with Clinton, he seemed to be more sensitive, whereas Clinton was more or less unqualified in her positions. For example, Obama and Clinton both favor the death penalty (which I oppose, except for heads of state). But Obama says that in his experience, he has found the death penalty arbitrarily applied and with grossly inadequate protection for the rights of the accused. No such remark from Clinton as far as I can tell.

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 19:32

Not at all. In Chumbly's example, his choices require the biological difference. He isn't doing it because he thinks that a white woman or a black man can't act. He's doing it because he knows that a white woman cannot be a black man.

Yet it's still discrimination, and it's based on gender, which means according to you its sexist.

Discrimination based in actual biological differences is not bigoted. But those choices exist only in a limited subset. For example, if a woman came in to have her genitals examined, a doctor might pull out a speculum. For a man, she wouldn't. That isn't sexism. It is necessitated by the basic biological differences between male and female.

Why, it fits your dictionary perfectly. Is it discrimination? Yes. Is it based on gender? Yes. If you don't believe it is, then you don't agree with your dictionary definition.

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:36

Yet it's still discrimination, and it's based on gender, which means according to you its sexist.

It's not really based in gender. It's based in the biological differences between a man and a woman. The director of a film needs someone to match a given description. She finds an actor to meet that description - which can only be a woman.

You are trying to take this to the point of being ridiculous, but I'm sure you are well aware of that.

Why, it fits your dictionary perfectly. Is it discrimination? Yes. Is it based on gender? Yes. If you don't believe it is, then you don't agree with your dictionary definition.

....except it isn't really based on gender. It's based on actual biological differences.

A doctor needs a speculum to examine a vagina. He doesn't need one to examine a penis. He makes the determination of what tools to use based on the genitalia he is examining.

He isn't saying, "You're a woman so I'll treat you differently." He's saying, "You have different parts so I need different tools."

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 19:44

I
....except it isn't really based on gender. It's based on actual biological differences.

But isn't that what gender is? Biological differences? Which is why I find your dictionary definition a bit simplistic and pointless.

If I look at wikipedia, which tends to have the accepted view on what words mean, you get this:

Sexism is a belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other and can also refer to a hatred or distrust towards either sex as a whole (see also misogyny and misandry), or imposing stereotypes of masculinity on men or femininity on women.[1]. It is also called male and female chauvinism.

Well, there ya go then.

Everywhar

04-06-2008, 19:44

But isn't that what gender is? Biological differences? Which is why I find your dictionary definition a bit simplistic and pointless.
Maybe in her usage. I can't speak for her, but usually there is a distinction made between sex and gender, which are different.

Free Soviets

04-06-2008, 19:52

People who vote based on sex or race may be hoping for egalitarianism, but their actions in no way support it.

so you keep saying, but this seems to contradict both evidence and logic

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:52

But isn't that what gender is? Biological differences?

No. Actually, gender refers to psychological differences.

But that's neither here nor there. Discrimination based on sex or gender rarely, if ever, has anything to do with biological differences. If we need to discriminate based on those differences, we can do it - individually. We can discriminate based on the needs caused by having a penis and those caused by having a vagina. And when it turns out that a patient has a vagina and undescended testes, we can treat them as their body requires.

Free Soviets

04-06-2008, 19:53

I am shooting a film, and I have two characters who's roles need to be filled. One is a white woman, the other is a black man; their sex and skin colour is crucial to the film's plot.

Why would choosing a white woman to play the white woman's part, and choosing a black man to play the black man's part be racist or sexist?

well played

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 19:54

so you keep saying, but this seems to contradict both evidence and logic

Not really. I've seen the effects of "adequate" people being promoted over better qualified ones because of their vaginas. It means that I have to deal with people who assume that I haven't worked hard to get where I am - that I have gotten it because of my vagina. I've seen the same thing happen with black colleagues.

And, unlike some people, I am aware of the fact that egalitarianism does not mean "Promoting people based on race/sex/etc., so long as it's the one those other guys don't promote."

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 19:56

No. Actually, gender refers to psychological differences.

But that's neither here nor there. Discrimination based on sex or gender rarely, if ever, has anything to do with biological differences. If we need to discriminate based on those differences, we can do it - individually. We can discriminate based on the needs caused by having a penis and those caused by having a vagina. And when it turns out that a patient has a vagina and undescended testes, we can treat them as their body requires.

Alright well we're just running round in circles, my main point is that the wiki definition is more accurate (as much as it pains me to say it).

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 20:05

Alright well we're just running round in circles, my main point is that the wiki definition is more accurate (as much as it pains me to say it).

I disagree. It defines the more blatant forms of sexism, but I do not believe it encompasses all of it.

Hydesland

04-06-2008, 20:10

I disagree. It defines the more blatant forms of sexism, but I do not believe it encompasses all of it.

But calling discrimination not based on a belief that women are inferior or have separate roles is pointless because it implies that it is based on that through connotation alone. Nobody ever really uses the word unless they think that people are being treated as inferior or separate.

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 20:30

Your words are out of order. The correct statement would be "That's not what it means at all."
Hardly. If, as a matter of fact, not one single gay person is ever elected to any office, I would not say we had achieved any kind of "equality", regardless of how many non-discrimination statutes or whatever were in place.
....a default that is only strengthened by voting for that person because of the trait in question.
The default is ELIMINATED, once someone has actually broken through the barrier. This of course will never occur if candidates run strictly as "the black/female/queer/atheist/whatever..." candidate; you are correct that the barrier-breaker must have merits, and be seen to have merits. But voting for a meritorious candidate on grounds that it would also be barrier-breaker does, in fact, make sure that the barrier does get broken, and I don't think any barriers have ever gotten broken without some of that happening. Go back to one of my earlier examples: the first gay mayor in my area ran strictly as a pro-business candidate and made nothing of being gay; but I don't think he would have gotten elected without the block-voters behind him to offset the block-voting of the bigots against him; and ONCE HE WAS IN, this opened the doors for others (particularly because he did such a good job for his town).
And if we don't give minority candidates the same level of examination we would use if there were no minority candidates, we are not treating them like everyone else.
And who is talking about not giving examination to anyone???? It has repeatedly emphasized that hardly any black people would vote for Alan Keyes, hardly any gay people would vote for Andrew Sullivan, and so on.

Chumblywumbly

04-06-2008, 21:30

Hardly. If, as a matter of fact, not one single gay person is ever elected to any office, I would not say we had achieved any kind of "equality", regardless of how many non-discrimination statutes or whatever were in place.
I would agree that if no homosexual folk were ever elected to any office, this would be an indicator that something wasn't quite right, but in principle why do we need homosexual representatives to represent homosexual people?

Being a heterosexual, I'd have no qualms about being represented by a homosexual. Why should a homosexual have qualms about being represented by a heterosexual (providing, of course, that said heterosexual representative was not bigoted)?

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 21:44

I would agree that if no homosexual folk were ever elected to any office, this would be an indicator that something wasn't quite right, but in principle why do we need homosexual representatives to represent homosexual people?
Legislative bodies making enactments that impact my life, without ever hearing from a single member who knows what my life is like, are a problem.
Being a heterosexual, I'd have no qualms about being represented by a homosexual.
That just proves you're not American ;)
Why should a homosexual have qualms about being represented by a heterosexual (providing, of course, that said heterosexual representative was not bigoted)?
How could I feel "qualms"? It's not like I've ever had a choice in the matter. ;) I've never had any but hetero candidates to vote for, in any election I actually got to vote in. That will change, as the barrier is broken in more and more localities, even including some around here. Once it reaches the state where homo candidates can run without facing an automatic handicap, then of course it would become much less important.

Conserative Morality

04-06-2008, 21:57

Chumblywumbly

04-06-2008, 22:12

Legislative bodies making enactments that impact my life, without ever hearing from a single member who knows what my life is like, are a problem.
Sure, I'd totally agree.

hat just proves you're not American
There's a number of openly gay MPs in the UK parliament (around 10 or so, I believe), and there's an interesting article on the subject here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/27/gayrights.houseofcommons), from a few years back:

"The Commons is a gay-friendly environment compared to provincial England or working for a shipbuilding firm," says the Lancashire Labour MP David Borrow, one of approaching a dozen openly gay MPs where before 1997 there was one - Chris Smith - and before Smith, none. "The Sun and the Daily Mail have both got journalists who are quite happy to make snide remarks," Borrow continues. "But in the Commons I don't think people talk about it any more."

Unfortunately though, the ugly spectre of homophobia does pop up now and again. Simon Hughes, a Lib Dem MP who was 'outed' during a failed bid for Lib Dem leadership, probably due to the 'outing', writes about his experience here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4652676.stm).

I've never had any but hetero candidates to vote for, in any election I actually got to vote in. That will change, as the barrier is broken in more and more localities, even including some around here. Once it reaches the state where homo candidates can run without facing an automatic handicap, then of course it would become much less important.
And we hope this day comes soon.

Tmutarakhan

04-06-2008, 22:17

And we hope this day comes soon.
I would hope so too, but don't really expect to live that long. Of course, I'm a pessimistic cynic, who would never have expected to live long enough to see a few things that have come about already.

Dempublicents1

04-06-2008, 23:22

But calling discrimination not based on a belief that women are inferior or have separate roles is pointless because it implies that it is based on that through connotation alone.

Only if that's the connotation you use.

I think sticking with that connotation ignores the more devious forms of sexism - not to mention sexism against men.

Nobody ever really uses the word unless they think that people are being treated as inferior or separate.

People are being treated as separate in this case. They are being treated differently based on their sex without a biological basis to back up that different treatment.

I don't know about you, but I consider that sexism. And I'm hardly the only one.

Hardly. If, as a matter of fact, not one single gay person is ever elected to any office, I would not say we had achieved any kind of "equality", regardless of how many non-discrimination statutes or whatever were in place.

Of course not. But this is not because equality is the same thing as butts in the seats or even because it directly necessitates them.

It is because the lack of any openly gay office holders would make it pretty clear that gay candidates were not being treated equally.

There is a reason that we don't expect extremely small companies to have proportional representation of different ethnicities. It is because their employee pool is so small that they are very unlikely to get that representation with fair hiring techniques. But, as a company gets larger, we expect that fair hiring practices would result in a proportional representation - just based on statistics. The lack of such representation points to a high likelihood of unfair hiring practices.

Proportions are a measuring stick, not a goal.

The default is ELIMINATED, once someone has actually broken through the barrier.

Oh, if only that were true. But it isn't.

Have you ever spoken to any of the trailblazers in a given area? If they do poorly, it is seen as being because they got their job based on minority status, rather than merit. If they do ok, they still took a job from someone else based on minority status.

Only if the are exceptional do they actually begin to truly pave the way for equality in their fields. Only then do they truly begin to erase the idea that members of [insert group here] don't belong there.

This of course will never occur if candidates run strictly as "the black/female/queer/atheist/whatever..." candidate; you are correct that the barrier-breaker must have merits, and be seen to have merits. But voting for a meritorious candidate on grounds that it would also be barrier-breaker does, in fact, make sure that the barrier does get broken, and I don't think any barriers have ever gotten broken without some of that happening.

There are some good words there. What you have basically described is the modern version of affirmative action. The only words you left out are that the candidate needs to be the most meritorious or, barring that, equivalent to the non-barrier breaker you could otherwise choose.

Go back to one of my earlier examples: the first gay mayor in my area ran strictly as a pro-business candidate and made nothing of being gay; but I don't think he would have gotten elected without the block-voters behind him to offset the block-voting of the bigots against him; and ONCE HE WAS IN, this opened the doors for others (particularly because he did such a good job for his town).

But were they voting for him because he was gay? Or because he was the best candidate and being gay was just a bonus?

And who is talking about not giving examination to anyone????

No one is saying that no examination should be given. But Free Soviets made it clear that less examination is acceptable - even preferable.

Everywhar

05-06-2008, 00:41

I would hope so too, but don't really expect to live that long. Of course, I'm a pessimistic cynic, who would never have expected to live long enough to see a few things that have come about already.
I expect to see the revolution before a queer president.

Forsakia

05-06-2008, 01:14

So X% of people voted based on gender/race. And Y% admitted it.

And the reasoning/evidence that Y is proportional to X is?

Everywhar

05-06-2008, 01:32

The assumption that Y < X.

Thus the ratio is X/Y.

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 02:40

So X% of people voted based on gender/race. And Y% admitted it.

And the reasoning/evidence that Y is proportional to X is?

I think what you're asking here is how one would know that Y is the same proportion of X across the board.

The truth is, you don't. We never know how many people are answering honestly when asked a question like that. But I think it's a fair assumption that the ratio of those who admit it to those who don't would be similar across the board.

And numbers that high of people who admit it are disturbing in and of themselves, even without getting into how many more might have been dishonest or convinced themselves otherwise.

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 02:47

Or maybe the question is whether or not we know that the percentage of people who admitted it in one direction would be the same as the percentage of people who admitted it in the other.

That's probably a trickier question. My guess is that the percentage of people willing to admit it would be somewhat higher in favor of female or black, since some people think it's not racism/sexism if it's in that direction.

With no way to measure that, though, we can't really consider it except as a hypothetical. If that is true, Hillary would have benefited even more from racism. She may, however, have benefited less from sexism than the available numbers suggest.

Free Soviets

05-06-2008, 06:16

the always worthwhile hilzoy (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/06/history.html):

History

I didn't support Barack Obama because of his race. I didn't need to: I just thought he was the best candidate by a long ways, mostly for wonky reasons. (I started down the road to supporting Obama when I read this sentence from a Washington Monthly article: "On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons.")

However: having myself been, on occasion, the first woman in various environments, I know how much it matters for people to come to terms with the idea that having a woman, or an African-American, in some job is just plain normal. I've spent a fair amount of time convincing some co-workers (none at my present place of employment) that I was not, in fact, literally their mothers, or any of the other peculiar things they thought a female colleague might turn out to be. That never bothered me: life has generally been good to me, and this minor annoyance seemed like a very small price to pay. However, it did give me a vivid appreciation of why it matters that women and people of color actually occupy various jobs: so that other people can get used to the idea that they are just normal, and realize, without any particular fanfare, that their worst fears about what having (say) a female colleague might be like are groundless.

For that reason, I would have voted for an African-American, or for a woman, over a more or less comparable white man. I truly want to get to the point at which it is completely normal for people of all races and genders to run for President, and this seems to me to be a good way to do it, at least when two candidates are relatively evenly matched. I didn't have to make this choice in this election: for one thing, neither Obama nor Clinton is a white man, and for another, I didn't see the choice between them as close enough. But had things been different, I would have.

That said, though, I don't think I really appreciated, on a visceral level, exactly how much this would mean to African-Americans until sometime around November. At that time, Obama was trailing Clinton by around 20 points among black voters, which I found odd, until I read some article -- I can't recall which -- with a number of interviews of black Democrats. Those interviews made it clear that most of the people quoted in the article did not believe that a black candidate -- any black candidate -- could win the nomination, let alone the Presidency. Once I had noticed that, I seemed to hear it a lot: just a few days ago, I was listening to CSPAN in the car, and a black voter called in and said that until Iowa, he had assumed that Obama was "some kind of stunt".

I suppose I live a sheltered life, but for some reason it hadn't crossed my mind that many African-Americans would think not just that it was very hard for a black man to win the nomination, but that it was impossible. But once it did, I found it horrible and heartbreaking, all the more so because, on reflection, I thought it was a perfectly reasonable thing to think. (At least in its milder form -- 'he can't win' -- as opposed to the more ominous 'they won't let him win.')

I thought: it is awful that people should think that no one who looks like them could possibly be nominated by a major party; that any candidate who looks like them has to be "some kind of stunt"; that if they tell their children that maybe they'll grow up to be President some day, they believe, in their heart of hearts, that they are lying. That should never, ever be true. Not in our country.

When Barack Obama won Iowa, the ground beneath that fear began to crack. Now it has been blown apart, in the only way it could have been. And whatever any of us think about this race, or Senator Obama, that is cause for celebration; as is the fact that it turned out not to be true.

Soheran

05-06-2008, 18:48

One need not choose based on race or gender to give the problem attention.

Of course you must. To target and analyze racism, you must actually deal with its victims, and do something to improve their situation.

If you treat them like everyone else, you are pretending the problem doesn't exist, not solving it. It's like not putting out a fire because you don't want to be unfair to the buildings that aren't being burned.

But, if you'd really like to claim that the end goal is just more black butts in the seats, you make that claim all you like.

A part of the goal? Absolutely. Abstract formal "equality" is useless if it doesn't mean substantive, concrete, material benefits.

The whole thing? Obviously not. But in this society, I take what I can get.

Actually, welfare strengthens class inequality because it doesn't do anything to combat it

No, welfare programs concretely do combat inequality... most obviously by giving the poor more money, and also by improving their economic security, alleviating the desperation that makes them so easy to exploit.

It's no accident that inequality tends to be lower and upward mobility higher in countries with high levels of social spending.

It gives welfare recipients just enough to survive without seeing to it that they can move up and, in fact, punishes them for trying.

Much like your version of "racial equality", it misses the point. It strives for the quick fix in a way that not only fails to address the real issue, but makes it worse.

And the alternative, of course, of "colorblindness" and laissez-faire is such a wonder for racial minorities and the poor?

Or is your proposal "real solutions" of some variety (which you have failed to specify)? I have rather significant problems with both affirmative action and the welfare state, but there's no socialist revolution brewing and black nationalism (like most varieties of nationalism) has never been a particularly practical idea.

I am willing to accept imperfect, partial solutions. I am willing to accept what is good, or at least better, when perfection is out of reach.

Health care, foreign policy, LGBT issues, economic policy.

Well, that's rather vague.

Foreign policy-wise, there have been the disputes over negotiations with alleged enemies, but this amounts to little more than Clinton playing up her hawkishness--a political tactic she employs by necessity in a sexist society. If there is a need, I see no reason to suspect that she would not do the same as Obama. Campaign promises generally have even less to do with the way foreign policy is actually run than they do with respect to domestic policy.

With respect to LGBT issues, Clinton and Obama are essentially identical, with the exception that Clinton has been forced into some contortions by attempting to defend the record of her husband's administration while at the same time promising to do the opposite. The real question here is not Clinton or Obama, but whether whoever is elected will actually spend the necessary political capital to get LGBT civil rights legislation passed as promised, which is an open question.

As for economic policy, you'll have to be more specific.

Really? And here I thought we were talking about a political office. I'm sure that someone's approach to how to get things done in that office can't possibly be a factor in their effectiveness, right?

Of course it is, but here, too, I see little distinction--both of them are effective politically, with the major difference being that Clinton has already been incessantly attacked and smeared, while the ridiculous accusations against Obama have only begun.

The difference people are actually voting on is something more like image--Obama as a fresh candidate who wants to change things, Clinton as an experienced candidate who knows how to get things done. Both images have been promoted effectively by their respective campaigns, but neither tells us much that is important about either candidate--namely, what they will actually do in office, rather than how they most like to sell themselves to voters.

Luckily, affirmative action doesn't work that way. It uses minority status as a tiebreaker, not a substantive factor in hiring.

Right. But what is a "tie"? You seem to think that it excludes everything but perfect identity, which would make affirmative action even less effectual than it actually is.

Not at all. Free Soviets flat-out stated that he wouldn't look at a resume beyond the sex of the applicant as long as they were "acceptable" and one of them had a vagina.

And he's clarified since what he actually meant, which is not the position you wish to impute to him.

In any case, while I agree with Free Soviets about nine times out of ten, he is not me.

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 19:09

Of course you must. To target and analyze racism, you must actually deal with its victims, and do something to improve their situation.

If you treat them like everyone else, you are pretending the problem doesn't exist, not solving it. It's like not putting out a fire because you don't want to be unfair to the buildings that aren't being burned.

Dealing with its victims still doesn't equate to choosing them for jobs based on their minority status.

You want to suggest that I'm saying that we should do nothing. I'm not. I'm simply saying that using the same tactics as our adversaries isn't going to help anything. If anything, it will embolden them.

No, welfare programs concretely do combat inequality... most obviously by giving the poor more money, and also by improving their economic security, alleviating the desperation that makes them so easy to exploit.

Not in the US. Our welfare programs keep people in poverty. Their short-sighted methods basically ensure that most people in need of welfare are kept on it indefinitely.

Or is your proposal "real solutions" of some variety (which you have failed to specify)?

On the welfare front or the racism one?

I am willing to accept imperfect, partial solutions. I am willing to accept what is good, or at least better, when perfection is out of reach.

As am I. But I'm not willing to accept short-sighted "fixes" that do more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it.

*snip*

In the interest of staying on topic, I don't think this is really the place for in-depth policy discussions.

Of course it is, but here, too, I see little distinction--both of them are effective politically, with the major difference being that Clinton has already been incessantly attacked and smeared, while the ridiculous accusations against Obama have only begun.

I disagree. I see fundamentally different approaches - one of which I think will be very effective, the other which I think is most often counter-productive.

Right. But what is a "tie"? You seem to think that it excludes everything but perfect identity, which would make affirmative action even less effectual than it actually is.

I've already answered this. A "tie" is when you have examined them in depth and found nothing that would lead you to choose one over the other if they were both the same race/sex/etc.

And he's clarified since what he actually meant, which is not the position you wish to impute to him.

In any case, while I agree with Free Soviets about nine times out of ten, he is not me.

His clarification was a repeat of the same thing, and an argument against something I never stated. I never said that acceptable meant "I'd only hire this person out of desperation." What it does mean - however - is what Free Soviets has been saying from the beginning - meeting basic criteria - the minimum at which you think a person could do the job.

And he never answered my questions about what he would do if he had two acceptable male candidates.

Soheran

05-06-2008, 19:34

You want to suggest that I'm saying that we should do nothing. I'm not. I'm simply saying that using the same tactics as our adversaries isn't going to help anything.

If you want to extend "same tactics" broadly enough to actually work here, then you'll have to include a whole list of other things in the same category--like lobbying, voting, eating, breathing, etc.

Ends matter. Consequences matter. Means do too, sometimes, but no one has ever made a convincing argument that anyone has a right to a particular job or admissions slot, so there's no reason that policies shouldn't be designed to pursue certain important social goals (like economic efficiency or racial equality).

If anything, it will embolden them.

Every step toward justice makes the defenders of the status quo louder.

On the welfare front or the racism one?

The more relevant one at the moment is racism.

I've already answered this. A "tie" is when you have examined them in depth and found nothing that would lead you to choose one over the other if they were both the same race/sex/etc.

But this amounts to the same thing. What do you think employers and colleges do, affirmative action policies or no, when they have similar candidates of the same race and sex? They find differences and decide on the basis of those.

The question is, which differences are minor enough that we can disregard them for the concrete, substantive benefit of taking a step towards greater racial equality?

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 20:01

If you want to extend "same tactics" broadly enough to actually work here, then you'll have to include a whole list of other things in the same category--like lobbying, voting, eating, breathing, etc.

Eh?

By same tactics, I mean you're doing the same thing. Hiring based on skin color or sex. That's the same thing that your adversaries do.

Ends matter. Consequences matter. Means do too, sometimes, but no one has ever made a convincing argument that anyone has a right to a particular job or admissions slot, so there's no reason that policies shouldn't be designed to pursue certain important social goals (like economic efficiency or racial equality).

No, but it has been argued that people have a right to avoid discrimination based on traits like ethnicity or sex. That right cannot exist if it doesn't extend to everyone.

You can design many policies designed to pursue racial equality without choosing workers based on the traits that have been used to discriminate against them.

Every step toward justice makes the defenders of the status quo louder.

But not every step gives them real arguments that your goal is no better. The people who are dead-set bigots are going to get louder as you try and reach equality.

But trying to reach equality simply by hiring based on minority status actually breeds new bigotry.

The more relevant one at the moment is racism.

In that case, there are all sorts of things to combat it. The ratios you press as an end goal unto themselves are a useful measuring stick of whether or not a company, school, profession, etc. is using fair practices. If you're looking at a fairly high number of people, and the ratios don't match the general population, this suggests that the area is affected by racism.

So what can you do? First of all, you have to start early. Many of the effects of racism come from the fact that children never realize that they can pursue interests in that direction, so there are less people of that ethnicity who do so. Programs designed to make it clear to children that they can pursue their interests, regardless of ethnicity, are a must - as is making sure that they have access to the same education as their majority counterparts.

Then you get to the level of recruiting. If your recruiting efforts are fairly limited to predominantly white areas or schools, you aren't likely to get a proportional representation of minority applicants. Stepping up recruiting in predominantly minority areas or schools will help get more minorities in the applicant pool.

And, finally, there's the tiebreaker effect. Once you've gone through your applicants and weeded them down as much as you can to the top choices - based on merit, there is a very good chance that you'll still have more applicants than you have slots. At that point, choosing the candidate who best increases the diversity of your company, school, etc. is a good step to take.

But this amounts to the same thing. What do you think employers and colleges do, affirmative action policies or no, when they have similar candidates of the same race and sex? They find differences and decide on the basis of those.

The question is, which differences are minor enough that we can disregard them for the concrete, substantive benefit of taking a step towards greater racial equality?

Ones that do not affect the overall aptitude of the candidate for the job. Ones that, if neither candidate was a minority, you would disregard unless you truly had nothing else to go on.

For instance, suppose you're looking to hire someone. You've got two WASP men applying for the job and, despite digging through the types of things that will affect their job performance, you can't find anything that puts one over the other. It's a tossup. So maybe you just go with your gut. Maybe you choose based on the fact that one of them went to your alma mater.

Suppose the same thing happens with a white and a black candidate, and you know that you are lacking in black employees. You don't need to use the alma mater thing. You can further an actual goal - diversity in the workplace. It wasn't an important trait in and of itself. But you had nothing to suggest that either candidate would do better on the job. So, at that point, you go with minority status.

Tmutarakhan

05-06-2008, 20:06

You want to suggest that I'm saying that we should do nothing. I'm not.
You're saying we should do as little as possible ;)

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 20:14

You're saying we should do as little as possible ;)

Not at all. I'm saying you should do MORE. Hiring based on ethnicity may be a quick fix that allows you to say "Look, we got more butts in the seats! We're clearly combating racism!" But, in the end, it does little, if anything, to actually combat racism.

It's like sweeping a mess under the rug so you can say the house looks clean. The mess is still there, just harder to see. And now you've gotten the rug dirty as well.

Tmutarakhan

05-06-2008, 20:49

Soheran

05-06-2008, 20:56

By same tactics, I mean you're doing the same thing. Hiring based on skin color or sex.

But for different purposes, and with different justifications and consequences.

In a strict sense, I am not actually advocating "hiring based on skin color or sex" at all. I am advocating hiring based on what will concretely reduce racial inequality--a basis that includes using race as an indicator of which decisions will pursue that goal.

No, but it has been argued that people have a right to avoid discrimination based on traits like ethnicity or sex.

I think this is a bad way to put it. Human beings and human institutions always made decisions that take into account arbitrary factors. That's the way the world works, both due to information problems and due to the fact that institutions have goals (like the right geographic mix) that necessarily incorporate such factors.

Discrimination based on arbitrary factors is a problem only when it is systemic, when the cumulative effect is a general marginalization and inequality. That's why we ban discrimination based on sex and race, and should ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity--but leave hair color and finger length alone.

You can design many policies designed to pursue racial equality without choosing workers based on the traits that have been used to discriminate against them.

How, without incorporating consideration of those "traits"?

But trying to reach equality simply by hiring based on minority status actually breeds new bigotry.

You keep on saying this--"hiring based on minority status"--but you seem to miss the fact that in no sense does such minority status stand alone. I'm not advocating a pure quota system.

So what can you do? First of all, you have to start early. Many of the effects of racism come from the fact that children never realize that they can pursue interests in that direction, so there are less people of that ethnicity who do so. Programs designed to make it clear to children that they can pursue their interests, regardless of ethnicity, are a must - as is making sure that they have access to the same education as their majority counterparts.

Both of these measures require targeted efforts: efforts targeted toward those who suffer from discrimination and a racist dominant culture.

Then you get to the level of recruiting. If your recruiting efforts are fairly limited to predominantly white areas or schools, you aren't likely to get a proportional representation of minority applicants. Stepping up recruiting in predominantly minority areas or schools will help get more minorities in the applicant pool.

Same here. By stepping up recruiting efforts, in effect you are reducing the information costs for potential applicants of a given race.

And, finally, there's the tiebreaker effect. Once you've gone through your applicants and weeded them down as much as you can to the top choices - based on merit, there is a very good chance that you'll still have more applicants than you have slots.

Doubtful. Really, it depends on how close to splitting hairs you want to get with your "weeding."

Ones that do not affect the overall aptitude of the candidate for the job. Ones that, if neither candidate was a minority, you would disregard unless you truly had nothing else to go on.

But any qualification only matters relatively... for instance, you needn't even consider standard measurements of qualification if your choice is between a rock and a human. But they are hardly arbitrary.

For instance, suppose you're looking to hire someone. You've got two WASP men applying for the job and, despite digging through the types of things that will affect their job performance, you can't find anything that puts one over the other. It's a tossup. So maybe you just go with your gut. Maybe you choose based on the fact that one of them went to your alma mater.

But this point does not generally come because there are no differences between the candidates, or even no difference in terms of qualification: it comes because those differences are relatively insignificant.

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 22:01

I think you're missing the point. As you say, "Many of the effects of racism come from the fact that children never realize that they can pursue interests in that direction, so there are less people of that ethnicity who do so." In the 60's, blacks in Detroit did not think about becoming policemen, because there just wasn't such a thing as a black policemen. "Programs designed to make it clear to children that they can pursue their interests, regardless of ethnicity, are a must"-- what do you think is actually going to persuade? The kids are going to see that The Man is just bullshitting them again, if they get a bunch of talk about how they "can" pursue their interests, but everything they see proves otherwise.

The best persuasion is certainly to see some people who have already taken that path - the trailblazers or those who come after them. But it isn't the only persuasion, or those trailblazers wouldn't exist in the first place.

I've participated in efforts to keep female and underprivileged students interested in math and science, for instance. Part of that effort was to have women and blacks in these areas be a part of the programs. But there were plenty of white men involved as well. The point was just to instill in them that these are areas in which they can excel, and that they should continue with what they find interesting, rather than what is supposedly "appropriate" for their sex/race.

In truth, parents who don't reinforce those views are the best possible resource - parents who instill in their children from an early age that they can do anything they set out to do - that neither their sex nor ethnicity should ever be allowed to get in the way of that.

But for different purposes, and with different justifications and consequences.

Different purposes, yes. Different justifications, yes.

But we all know that intentions are not equivalent to results.

The consequences are pretty much the same either way. The difference is that you would promote group A over group B, while the other side would promote group B over group A.

In a strict sense, I am not actually advocating "hiring based on skin color or sex" at all. I am advocating hiring based on what will concretely reduce racial inequality--a basis that includes using race as an indicator of which decisions will pursue that goal.

And failing to recognize that this doesn't necessarily reduce racial inequality and may, in the end, perpetuate it.

Discrimination based on arbitrary factors is a problem only when it is systemic, when the cumulative effect is a general marginalization and inequality.

I disagree. If one person is discriminated against because they have the wrong skin color or the wrong genitalia when those things are irrelevant to the job, I see that as a problem. A man who is passed over for a scholarship because his extra work didn't matter in the face of a female applicant who had done less isn't harmed any less than a woman in the opposite situation simply because it happens to women more. And the same is true when you're looking at race issues.

You don't get to systemic without lots of individual instances. Tolerating individual instances is the reason that something becomes systemic.

You keep on saying this--"hiring based on minority status"--but you seem to miss the fact that in no sense does such minority status stand alone. I'm not advocating a pure quota system.

No, but you do seem to be advocating that minority status count for more than at least some considerations that are actually relevant to the job that will be done.

I'm suggesting that you complete a merit-based process in its entirety before you even look at those factors. You seem to be suggesting that you cut the merit-based process short if there is a minority candidate.

Both of these measures require targeted efforts: efforts targeted toward those who suffer from discrimination and a racist dominant culture.

Targeted towards, yes. But not discriminatory. If you go into a predominantly black area or school to encourage interest in or recruit for a given field, you don't ignore any white people who also happen to be in that area or at that school. They also benefit from the attention.

When you increase funding at predominantly black schools and try to recruit highly qualified teachers there, the white students there still benefit from the better education. But, statistically, you're going to be helping more black students. You have targeted efforts towards the minority without compromising the concept of equality.

Doubtful. Really, it depends on how close to splitting hairs you want to get with your "weeding."

However much weeding you would do if you didn't have any minority candidates.

Tmutarakhan

05-06-2008, 22:06

The best persuasion is certainly to see some people who have already taken that path - the trailblazers or those who come after them. But it isn't the only persuasion, or those trailblazers wouldn't exist in the first place.
You seem to want to make trailblazers as rare as possible, though. If there is one black applicant in a sea of 100 white, he has to be absolutely positively the best in every axis (not enough for him to be best in one criterion and lesser in others, as would usually happen) before it is legitimate to let him have the job.

Dempublicents1

05-06-2008, 22:51

You seem to want to make trailblazers as rare as possible, though.

Not at all. I think they should be more common. Hence the focus on getting more minority applicants in the first place.

If there is one black applicant in a sea of 100 white, he has to be absolutely positively the best in every axis (not enough for him to be best in one criterion and lesser in others, as would usually happen) before it is legitimate to let him have the job.

Now you're being silly. If it ever happens at all, getting a candidate who is the best in every axis doesn't happen often enough to make that the mark in any decision. If it were simply 100 white applicants, you wouldn't have one that was best in every single axis. Most likely, you'd have a few who excelled enough that you'd narrow it down to them and then have to choose rather arbitrarily.

What I'm saying is that, to legitimately hire the black applicant in your hypothetical, he would have to be among those few.

That, and I think a more important step is quite often making sure you have more than one black applicant in such a large pool.

Tech-gnosis

05-06-2008, 23:06

Not in the US. Our welfare programs keep people in poverty. Their short-sighted methods basically ensure that most people in need of welfare are kept on it indefinitely.

Ummm.... TANF is limited to 5 years over a lifetime. It had shitty marginal tax rates on benefits, but it hardly keeps people on welfare indefinitely. Even with AFDC, which had a 100% marginal tax rate, the median number of years spent on there was 3 years.

Tmutarakhan

06-06-2008, 21:09

Most likely, you'd have a few who excelled enough that you'd narrow it down to them and then have to choose rather arbitrarily.

What I'm saying is that, to legitimately hire the black applicant in your hypothetical, he would have to be among those few.
That's what everybody else was saying, too, but you seemed to making a point of saying that was wrong.

Dempublicents1

06-06-2008, 21:47

That's what everybody else was saying, too, but you seemed to making a point of saying that was wrong.

No, it isn't. It's what I've been saying all along. And others have argued with me - saying that you don't even need to get to that level. They don't need to excel. Adequacy is enough to decide that their minority status puts them over.

Tmutarakhan

06-06-2008, 22:01

You keep ACCUSING other people of saying that, even when they tell you, repeatedly, that no, that is not what they are saying.

Dempublicents1

06-06-2008, 22:12

You keep ACCUSING other people of saying that, even when they tell you, repeatedly, that no, that is not what they are saying.

(a) You keep telling me this about Free Soviets. But all he did is say that no, he didn't mean that he would have to be desperate to hire the person - something I never stipulated. He still reiterated that the basic requirements were all that was needed before minority status comes into play - and that anything over the basic requirements was not relevant.

Soheran has constantly called any consideration above the most basis "non-substantive" even when those considerations would have a direct effect on the candidate's ability to do the job.

Its like saying, "I think we should have ice cream for dessert." Then, when I say, "Oh, so you think we should have something frozen and sweet?" yelling "NO! That's not what I said!"

(b) Every time I have stated that a minority candidate would have to be someone who would get hired if they were not a minority candidate - the best candidate or one otherwise indistinguishable from the other best candidates, you and others have argued with me. You've stated that it is too high a bar and that it would mean no minorities would ever get hired. If you would like to go back on those arguments and agree with me, fine.

Soheran

06-06-2008, 22:15

Soheran has constantly called any consideration above the most basis "non-substantive" even when those considerations would have a direct effect on the candidate's ability to do the job.

Its like saying, "I think we should have ice cream for dessert." Then, when I say, "Oh, so you think we should have something frozen and sweet?" yelling "NO! That's not what I said!"

I'll let this speak for itself--with my bolding, anyway.

Tmutarakhan

06-06-2008, 22:19

Every time I have stated that a minority candidate would have to be someone who would get hired if they were not a minority candidate - the best candidate or one otherwise indistinguishable from the other best candidates, you and others have argued with me.
No, I've never argued against that, and I don't know what it is you think from other people constitutes arguing against that. Everybody seems to be saying the same thing, except that you are determined to say that you disagree with everybody else.

Dempublicents1

06-06-2008, 22:25

No, I've never argued against that, and I don't know what it is you think from other people constitutes arguing against that. Everybody seems to be saying the same thing, except that you are determined to say that you disagree with everybody else.

It's what I've been saying all along. You have been making a point of arguing with me.

If you agreed all along, one must wonder why you've been arguing.

Dempublicents1

06-06-2008, 22:26

I'll let this speak for itself--with my bolding, anyway.

So how do you define substantive, then?

I think most people would say that a consideration that would directly affect the job being done would be substantive, not the other way around.

Soheran

06-06-2008, 22:27

I think most people would say that a consideration that would directly affect the job being done would be substantive, not the other way around.

Strange, then, that you would assign to my usage a meaning conflicting with the actual meaning of the word.

Dempublicents1

06-06-2008, 22:30

Strange, then, that you would assign to my usage a meaning conflicting with the actual meaning of the word.

That's because your usage was conflicting with the actual meaning of the word.

I brought up differences that would affect a politician's ability to get the job done and what they would do. Your response? "Non-substantive".

It would appear that you are looking for an excuse to use minority status, instead of using it as a last measure. Clearly, if we declare any differences "non-substantive", regardless of their actual effect, we can use minority status willy nilly.

Tmutarakhan

06-06-2008, 22:35

It's what I've been saying all along. You have been making a point of arguing with me.

If you agreed all along, one must wonder why you've been arguing.
I agreed with FreeSoviets, whom I understood to be taking the position that you now claim to have been in favor of from the beginning. At first all I was arguing about you with was about what FreeSoviets was meaning to say. But then, it appeared that you were opposed not only to your strawman of FreeSoviets as a quota-filler, but also to any kind of affirmative action. At this point, I have no freaking idea what point, if any, you are trying to make.

Dempublicents1

06-06-2008, 22:40

I agreed with FreeSoviets, whom I understood to be taking the position that you now claim to have been in favor of from the beginning. At first all I was arguing about you with was about what FreeSoviets was meaning to say.

Free Soviets flat-out stated that he wouldn't even look at two candidates beyond the basic requirements if one of them had a underrepresented status. When you tried to say that wasn't his argument, he reiterated the exact same argument.

That is not what I have been advocating.

But then, it appeared that you were opposed not only to your strawman of FreeSoviets as a quota-filler, but also to any kind of affirmative action.

Now you're making up straw-strawmen. I never said Free Soviets was a "quota filler". A quota not only leads to less qualified candidates getting jobs, but generally leads to unqualified candidates as well.

Free Soviets didn't go to the level of hiring based purely on minority status. He did say that a set of basic requirements would be used. But he made it clear that he would not give a minority candidate the same level of scrutiny he would use if there were no minority candidates.

Meanwhile, considering that I have consistently -both in my replies to you and to everyone else here - advocated modern forms of affirmative action, you'd have to do some pretty strange mental gymnastics to get to the conclusion that I don't support it.

At this point, I have no freaking idea what point, if any, you are trying to make.

That goes both ways, believe me.

Soheran

06-06-2008, 22:51

I brought up differences that would affect a politician's ability to get the job done and what they would do. Your response? "Non-substantive".

Question-begging.

It would appear that you are looking for an excuse to use minority status,

Indeed. After destroying straight marriages and undermining the cause of freedom, the imposition of black supremacy is up there on my list of objectives.

Tmutarakhan

06-06-2008, 23:03

Free Soviets flat-out stated that he wouldn't even look at two candidates beyond the basic requirements if one of them had a underrepresented status.
No, he didn't say that.

When you tried to say that wasn't his argument, he reiterated the exact same argument.
He repeated the same position he had held before, which I already understood, and you repeated the same misunderstanding.

Meanwhile, considering that I have consistently -both in my replies to you and to everyone else here - advocated modern forms of affirmative action...
It is only recently that you had anything to say in favor of affirmative action. Anytime someone spoke for affirmative action, you caricatured and attacked their position.

Dempublicents1

07-06-2008, 20:47

No, he didn't say that.

Really?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13738206&postcount=17
Here, he clearly states that they must meet your "basic criteria." Not that they have to be the best qualified.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13738641&postcount=27
Here, he clearly states that he would not examine them beyond the basic criteria if one was a woman.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13739048&postcount=31
"Basic" requirements yet again.

So you tell me. What do phrases like "basic criteria" and "basic requirements" mean?

It is only recently that you had anything to say in favor of affirmative action. Anytime someone spoke for affirmative action, you caricatured and attacked their position.

Bull.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13740766&postcount=75
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741274&postcount=90
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741778&postcount=93
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13743595&postcount=132
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13745535&postcount=142

The actual phrase "affirmative action" is not used in all of these posts, but I advocate its use in all of them. In some, I even talk about affirmative actions I myself have been involved in.

What I have been consistently arguing against is making a determination based on sex or ethnicity before determining the best candidate(s).

Tmutarakhan

09-06-2008, 21:51

So you tell me. What do phrases like "basic criteria" and "basic requirements" mean?
That you don't "make a determination based on sex or ethnicity" before sifting out which candidates are best for the job. At that point you probably have a bunch of candidates, any of whom would do fine, each better than others and worse than others in this and that respect that is arguing relevant, but none with any distinction that is actually crucial. So if there weren't any "diversity" question, you would end up deciding arbitrarily whether "he's a snappier dresser and more presentable" is the factor you want to weight the most.
What you seemed to be arguing is that you go through all those arbitrary factors as well, before letting sex or ethnicity be the absolutely last tie-breaker you would consider. I don't know whether that's what you mean or not; the most important point to you, frankly, seems to be just "I'm the only one who's right and everyone else is saying it wrong".

Dempublicents1

09-06-2008, 22:01

That you don't "make a determination based on sex or ethnicity" before sifting out which candidates are best for the job.

So it is your contention that basic = best?

Let me bring up my example again - one that Free Soviets never answered.

Suppose you need a Java programmer with 3 years experience. You have two possible candidates - A and B. A has 3 years of experience and has coded in Java. B has 6 years of experience, has coded in Java and other languages, and also has other relevant background.

Now, A and B both meet the basic requirements - Java programmer with 3 years experience. This does not, however, mean that they are both equally well suited for the job. It means they meet the basic requirements and either would be suitable for the job.

At that point you probably have a bunch of candidates, any of whom would do fine, each better than others and worse than others in this and that respect that is arguing relevant, but none with any distinction that is actually crucial.

Again, this sort of analysis goes well beyond "basic".

"Basic", in an example Free Soviets specifically used, could simply mean "Is a Democrat."

In one of your very first posts in the thread, you seemed to detail a process like this as how you chose between Obama and Clinton - that you looked at them in depth. You found differences, but none that made one clearly a better candidate than the other. At this point, you used minority status.

When I pointed out that it was the type of process I agreed with and how it was different from those I disagree with - namely, that you used minority status as a tie-breaker rather than a major deciding factor - you argued with me.

Fall of Empire

09-06-2008, 22:02

Free Soviets

09-06-2008, 22:05

So you tell me. What do phrases like "basic criteria" and "basic requirements" mean?

hey, how about we go back to the post of mine you actually already linked to and actually read it?

we already established that you apparently meant by 'basic criteria' the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel it'll-have-to-do level. we also already established that i was taking it to mean that the candidates are roughly equivalent among the relevant requirements, such that the thing making the decision difficult is that there are two such people.

Dempublicents1

09-06-2008, 22:06

What struck me as odd was that the "state" where the most people choose Hillary based on her race was Puerto Rico...

She was progressively pulling the "I'm losing because I'm female card" more and more often over the course of the race. That could explain why a very late contest like Puerto Rico used it as a major factor.

Interestingly enough today, I heard a short interview with a Clinton supporter who said she would not be voting for Obama in the general. She said she couldn't understand why younger women weren't upset by sexist comments made towards Clinton in the media - as if being upset over such comments was, itself, a good enough reason to vote for her.

Free Soviets

09-06-2008, 22:11

Let me bring up my example again - one that Free Soviets never answered.

Suppose you need a Java programmer with 3 years experience. You have two possible candidates - A and B. A has 3 years of experience and has coded in Java. B has 6 years of experience, has coded in Java and other languages, and also has other relevant background.

Now, A and B both meet the basic requirements - Java programmer with 3 years experience. This does not, however, mean that they are both equally well suited for the job. It means they meet the basic requirements and either would be suitable for the job.

they, in fact, might be approximately equally worth hiring. you don't believe that companies always hire those with the most years of doing a thing, do you?

Tmutarakhan

09-06-2008, 22:13

"Basic", in an example Free Soviets specifically used, could simply mean "Is a Democrat."
He told you repeatedly that wasn't what he was meaning, and you continued to insist that he must mean what you claimed he meant.
In one of your very first posts in the thread, you seemed to detail a process like this as how you chose between Obama and Clinton - that you looked at them in depth. You found differences, but none that made one clearly a better candidate than the other. At this point, you used minority status.

When I pointed out that it was the type of process I agreed with and how it was different from those I disagree with - namely, that you used minority status as a tie-breaker rather than a major deciding factor - you argued with me.
You did not at all seem to be indicating that you were agreeing with me. All you were indicating was that you strongly disagreed with FreeSoviets, who seemed both to me and to himself to be saying the same thing that I was. You went on to attack the notion of using sex and ethnicity as factors, in terms that suggested you opposed using them as factors ever (that a minority candidate should only get the job if the process would have given that candidate the job regardless), and now cite those, saying "The actual phrase "affirmative action" is not used in all of these posts, but I advocate its use in all of them". Oh really? "Voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation is voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation. It cannot support equality - whether you are voting for a minority or not." and suchlike statements gave rather the impression that you were strongly opposed to any form of affirmative action whatsoever.

Dempublicents1

09-06-2008, 22:17

we already established that you apparently meant by 'basic criteria' the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel it'll-have-to-do level.

We didn't establish any such thing. You decided that I meant it in a disparaging way. In reality, I was using it as exactly what it means in English - that both candidates met the basic requirements, whatever they were, for the job. If what you have determined that you need is a set of X criteria, they both meet that criteria.

That doesn't mean that there is nothing relevant about them that makes one a better candidate than the other.

we also already established that i was taking it to mean that the candidates are roughly equivalent among the relevant requirements, such that the thing making the decision difficult is that there are two such people.

We did? As far as I can tell, this is the first time I've seen you type anything like that. You were using words like "acceptable" and "basic" before.

Now we just have to define "roughly equivalent". Does that mean that there is nothing relevant to the job that would cause you to choose one over the other? Either that neither of them go beyond the basic requirements or that both of them do to the same extent?

Dempublicents1

09-06-2008, 22:19

they, in fact, might be approximately equally worth hiring. you don't believe that companies always hire those with the most years of doing a thing, do you?

No, but I was giving you possible distinctions between them. It's an example.

As a general rule, all other things being equal, companies will hire the person with the most experience.

Dempublicents1

09-06-2008, 22:29

He told you repeatedly that wasn't what he was meaning, and you continued to insist that he must mean what you claimed he meant.

...because he kept repeating the exact same thing.

You did not at all seem to be indicating that you were agreeing with me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13741095&postcount=80

I said that your description was a "different" situation and clearly delineated it from racist processes.

*shrug*

Maybe it wasn't clear, but I don't see how it wouldn't be.

I even delineate, in that very post, the difference between voting based on minority status and using minority status as a tiebreaker.

You went on to attack the notion of using sex and ethnicity as factors, in terms that suggested you opposed using them as factors ever (that a minority candidate should only get the job if the process would have given that candidate the job regardless), and now cite those, saying "The actual phrase "affirmative action" is not used in all of these posts, but I advocate its use in all of them".

The candidate should only get the job if that candidate would have gotten the job regardless of their ethnicity. As I have been saying from the very beginning, it should be used as a tiebreaker, not a major factor.

That is part of affirmative action.

Oh really? "Voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation is voting based on race/gender/sexual orientation. It cannot support equality - whether you are voting for a minority or not." and suchlike statements gave rather the impression that you were strongly opposed to any form of affirmative action whatsoever.

Maybe you don't understand affirmative action, then. You don't get a job based on any of those factors in affirmative action programs. You get them based on your own merits. Your minority status comes into effect only if it is needed to decide between equally meritorious candidates.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Identity Politics -- NOT just US election