2020 Elections

[eigen]

Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

[financeguy]

Whatever someone thinks about Harris, I and many others will never, no matter what, under any circumstance ever take her seriously on any issue after receiving a make work show up job for bedding Willie Brown in SF. Sorry, your "strong independent woman" card is permanently revoked when you start off with that strategy. Can't have it both ways.

[marshwiggle]

Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

[Economizer]

I have, in political discussion broadcasts, heard that the polls were way off on their per candidate shares of voter strength. I do not agree that is the case. Instead, it is my opinion that poll numbers were off for the purpose of "bandwagon fulllfillment", an intentional psychological tact meant to influence immature voters.

[ciao_yall]

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person?

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.

[eigen]

Racism - absolutely. It's the "systemic" part that starts making universal accusations and ascribing guilt by association.

You clearly don't understand this term. It doesn't mean everyone is racist, it means there are deep, systemic things in our society that perpetuate inequalities. It's not about what's in anyone's heart, it's about how legal, economic, educational, political, etc. systems impact people in ways that differ by race. But of course you would know that if you actually had even a fraction of an open mind rather than just assuming it means what you want it to mean.

So does that mean that everyone in society is equally responsible for it? (Since it's not about "what's in anyone's heart"?)

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

[mahagonny]

Y'all should check out John McWhorter. His manner of speaking is gentle and respectful, and he has academic credentials that won't quit (although that doesn't seem to dissuade people from concluding that someone might be a total nut case; academia being a rough and tumble world --- nevertheless I will try encouraging you here.)  No one could remind you less of Donald Trump. But as long as racism has been identified by Harris and Biden as front and center of today's urgent concerns, then all things that might be racist in their effect (if not intent) are fair game for discussion. According to McWhorter it is racist to suppose that today's black American cannot survive and thrive without white people constantly accommodating him by guarding against implicit bias or those hidden evil things that we are certain lurk within the system. That he is that fragile and weak with coping skills that he cannot navigate himself through a world in which he regularly meets people who don't give a damn whether he succeeds or gets an even break.
To suppose that he needs such constant accommodation is to harmfully underestimate the personal agency he was born with. And these messages become internalized.
Racism? Hell yeah. From the Democrats.

As if the world wants to greet every white person with open arms. As I have been told, white people rule the USA. Which white people though? Not my wife and I.

A lot of the clash over questions of racism of all 57 varieties today is political anyway. It's part of a larger tug-of-war over who should have more control over government. It's the currency in the democratic party bank account, and once you've decided you don't have to be a democrat if you want, it starts looking like three dollar bills.

^Unrelated to whatever the above is going on about...(after all, Harris IS qualified to discuss racism first-hand....)

Harris is no more qualified to discuss racism than I am.  Even if we grant that the person who has experienced the most racism is the most qualified to discuss it (which I don't), it's not obvious that Harris has experienced more racism than I have. 

Or are we arguing that every "B"lack person has experienced more racism than every white person?

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.

OOHHH!!! Most intriguing.

Not so fast. Some details would make your post interesting.

[dismalist]

Once someone mistakenly thought I was Black. (Long story). It was a strange experience. The error was corrected and the reaction, change of vibe, etc was amazing.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assume I am white, for any reason.

So, while I can't say I have truly experienced racism, I can say that my brief experience of being Black was different than any other experience I have ever had, by a long shot.

Always I am mistaken for being Jewish, honestly. Short story. The experience is not strange if the error has to be corrected, for whatever reason.

I have never felt the same vibe with people who correctly assumed I am not Jewish, for any reason.

So, I cannot say I have experienced anti-semitism, but I can say that the experience of being seen as Jewish is no different from any other identification experience I've ever had, by a long shot.

Let us not conflate personal experiences with systemic racism. There was and is anti-semitism, but nowadays there is no systemic anti-semitism. [Well, exept at Harvard, as there was a long time ago, but it's probably OK because Asians are discriminated against as well. :-)]

Gimme a break.

[marshwiggle]

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

Let's put this in statistical terms. If the claim is that there are only "racists" and "anti-racists", what is the statistical evidence for the distribution being bimodal, rather than Gaussian?

For example, in discussions about education, where some schools have much worse outcomes than others, progressives would argue that people are either less concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "racists"), or more concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "anti-racists").

What is the statistical evidence that the distribution is not Gaussian, i.e. that for the greatest number of people whether the children are black or not doesn't really affect how much they care about the quality of the schools?

[mahagonny]

Let us not conflate personal experiences with systemic racism.

Honest questions: is there anyone who thinks systemic racism is a lot of bunk, but implicit bias is a problem in need of serious work? Is there anyone who thinks implicit bias is a myth or grossly overstated while systemic racism is a serious problem? Or do we have to buy to whole package together?

Honest question: since we know that black people in the USA believe they are more bigoted than whites are, and whites, and virtually everyone else have a similar impression, is it acceptable for a white person to say they ought to do something about that, as Larry Elder and Tom Sowell do? If it's not acceptable for whites to say anything critical is it OK for people not white but other than black to?

https://www.oaoa.com/editorial/columns/opinion_columnist/sowell-who-is-racist/article_a7b9c3a2-ea82-11e2-8c20-0019bb30f31a.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlGE9dg7fyM

[Kron3007]

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

Let's put this in statistical terms. If the claim is that there are only "racists" and "anti-racists", what is the statistical evidence for the distribution being bimodal, rather than Gaussian?

For example, in discussions about education, where some schools have much worse outcomes than others, progressives would argue that people are either less concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "racists"), or more concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "anti-racists").

What is the statistical evidence that the distribution is not Gaussian, i.e. that for the greatest number of people whether the children are black or not doesn't really affect how much they care about the quality of the schools?

Who ever said it is binary (racist vs non-racist)?  I think most people would see that it is a gradient.

Systemic racism is not really about racism in many ways (perhaps a poor choice of words), just that the system in place negatively impacts one race more than others.  I remember living in Mississippi and listening to a radio program stating that 97% of student in public school in one region were black (much higher than the general population as other groups tended to use private schools).  Since the public education system in that region is underfunded and not overly good, this will disproportionately impact the quality of education of black families.  This is not directly related to racism and is likely a consequence of income, but the lack of funding the public school disproportionately impacts one race.  School districts and funding models in the US are just one of many examples.     

[apl68]

This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

Election revenge terrorism is a valid concern.  But I'll take the concern that there might be isolated acts of such over the virtual certainty of widespread rioting had the results gone differently.

[marshwiggle]

Equally is a stretch, since you have people both fighting to change systemic barriers and put up new ones.

Where does that leave people who are strongly opposed to explicit barriers, and who support non-identity-based social change, but who reject the "systemic" label?

Honestly, I'd argue living in a dream world that doesn't mirror reality, and more than a little naive.

Let's put this in statistical terms. If the claim is that there are only "racists" and "anti-racists", what is the statistical evidence for the distribution being bimodal, rather than Gaussian?

For example, in discussions about education, where some schools have much worse outcomes than others, progressives would argue that people are either less concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "racists"), or more concerned because the children are black (i.e. the "anti-racists").

What is the statistical evidence that the distribution is not Gaussian, i.e. that for the greatest number of people whether the children are black or not doesn't really affect how much they care about the quality of the schools?

Who ever said it is binary (racist vs non-racist)?  I think most people would see that it is a gradient.

Systemic racism is not really about racism in many ways (perhaps a poor choice of words), just that the system in place negatively impacts one race more than others.  I remember living in Mississippi and listening to a radio program stating that 97% of student in public school in one region were black (much higher than the general population as other groups tended to use private schools).  Since the public education system in that region is underfunded and not overly good, this will disproportionately impact the quality of education of black families.  This is not directly related to racism and is likely a consequence of income, but the lack of funding the public school disproportionately impacts one race.  School districts and funding models in the US are just one of many examples.    

This is a perfect example of an issue that is about class, i.e. wealth inequality, but is presented as an issue of race in order to have a bigger club to beat people over the head with if they aren't sufficiently engaged.  (You're a "racist"! Or, "The system is racist!")

Every issue related to economic inequality gets this treatement. But by doing so it avoids having the main discussion about the economic system, and instead makes it about discussing history, which has nothing to do with the poverty of certain groups like refugees, whereas improvements to the economic system would help everyone in poverty, regardless of what has put them there.

[Kron3007]

Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.

[marshwiggle]

Yes, this example is more about class.  However, I think the discrepancy in economics in black communities cannot be completely separated from American history.

There are other examples where race is directly relevant, especially related to police activities such as carding etc.  I find it hard to understand how people do not see this.

The issue is not whether people see it; it's whether that is the most productive way to address it. At the very least, by making it about race, then by definition, it doesn't potentially apply to everyone. However, by making it about economics, since peoples' situations can change in ways their race cannot, it is of potential relevance to everyone.