2020 Elections

[marshwiggle]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

[mahagonny]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

It's not any sillier than assuming that different demographic groups must always achieve equal levels of success or else society is doing something unfair to them. This is being done regularly by academics who have been trained to insist on evidence.

[Kron3007]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

[Kron3007]

I totally agree that the intellectual argument dosn't convince voters and it is one of the problems with some of the approaches democrats tend to take.  Fortunately, I am not a politician and it is not my goal to get people to vote either way.

I don't see what is particularly abstruse about saying the best, most urgently needed or most efficacious way to help black Americans succeed more is to fight systemic racism. The fact that more people don't agree does not prove they don't understand the argument.

Start talking about absence of the father in the home and its detrimental effects on young black men, and you're a racist. Blaming the victim. Except Obama said that very thing.

Many people don't believe there is systemic racism, so they would not agree with this.

We could talk about systemic discrimination against humaities graduates. Unemployment and under-employmenty and the adjunct situation all disproportionately affect humanities graduates. What is the solution? Reparations - i.e. tax graduates of other programs to feed the money to humanities gradautes? And given that, as humanities recruiters love to point out, many CEOs are humanities and very successful finacially, should they get reparations as well?

The systemic label automatically assumes equality of outcomes precludes any meaningful discussion about agency.

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

It's not any sillier than assuming that different demographic groups must always achieve equal levels of success or else society is doing something unfair to them. This is being done regularly by academics who have been trained to insist on evidence.

I have never said that all groups must always achieve equal levels of success, just that there should not be artificial barriers that prevent it.  There are many examples of people being discriminated against based on their race.   

[financeguy]

We've apparently made the decision that any problem experienced by a group is the result of something outside the group. You don't just see this with race and gender but school systems as well. It's never an "us" problem. Rather than saying systematic issues are one possible reason for a portion of an outcome, we insist on an all or nothing answer to give a silver bullet. Genetic explanations of any kind for any issue are totally off bounds regardless of merit. Straight to the "R Word" penalty box if even mentioned as a possibility. The idea that whatever phenomena one suggests as the root of differences in outcomes should be backed by evidence is simply proof of "supporting the existing systemic structure." Facts are now at minimum micro aggressions and at worst tools of an oppressive system.

[fourhats]

I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Thank you for that, Spork.

[marshwiggle]

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

[mahagonny]

I'll guess that all the people yammering about race on this thread are white. Zzzzz.

Thank you for that, Spork.

I think it's one of the most richly ironic things I've heard in quite awhile considering this entire forum caters to the concerns of the tenure track and its noble place in culture as the owners of the monopoly on unrestrained truth, the tenure track is two per cent African American, yet sees itself as urgently concerned over 'underrepresented' demographic and racial groups, and the fact that the posters Spork refers to are the less-than-liberal outliers here, whereas the constant, unrelenting focus on race in our culture is clearly the work of the left and its higher ed fortress.
But maybe this needs a split-off.

edited to add: the prevailing take on this in academia is the left can talk about race as often as they want and it's only someone heroic stepping in to prevent a wrong. They have innoculized themselves against the 'white fragility' charge.

[Kron3007]

We could talk about that, but it is obviously silly.

Why? What is different in using the word "systemic" about that situation from how it is used in "systemic" racism, since the point is that even if the system wasn't explicitly set up to penalize one group, the fact that one group disproportionately suffers is the issue?

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

[mahagonny]

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

Let's get busy and change those centuries.

[mamselle]

So, back to elections...

One article I saw suggested that the orange-tufted gooney bird is going to build a news network to out-fox Fox.

    https://www.axios.com/trump-fox-news-digital-media-competitor-25afddee-144d-4820-8ed4-9eb0ffa42420.html

I read it and thought--ah-ah, there's the answer.  As Marilyn French's character, Val, observed in "The Women's Room,"

"...You [paraphrasing here] have to move someone else in on a guy if you want to drop him. They won't go because you tell them you don't want to be with them any more, because they can't believe that could be true. Obviously you need them, you're a woman, you MUST need a guy in your life, and they're already there, so why wouldn't you need them? They won't understand unless you move someone else into that role, and then they can accept that, OK, you don't need them but you do need someone else, and that person has now come along, so they can go because you have someone else."

So, to apply that logic in this case, Trump could be enticed to leave the Presidency IF he had something else more interesting/potentially rewarding to do. He'll move on when he has something to move to, in other words.

I suggest Biden find funding for Trump's new shiny play-toy-news-network and shoehorn him out that way.

He still may not formally concede, and he could be even more dangerous, but at least he'd leave.

M.

[marshwiggle]

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

There's a problem with that (source):

Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.

For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

[mahagonny]

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

There's a problem with that (source):

Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.

For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

I would posit that the collapse of the family is rooted in the present, or at least the very recent past. white liberal have sold us, and especially black Americans a bill of goods. The option for a single woman to raise a child was looked at as a win for women's rights and a challenge to the patriarchy. When Murphy Brown did this it was the general consensus that Dan Quayle, with his antiquated male dominance views was the one who didn't get it. Nobody gave a damn what this meant for poor people. Years later Obama tried to influence people back toward tradition but he got nowhere.

[ciao_yall]

The penal system also disproportionately incarcerates criminals.  This does not make is systemic discrimination, it is simply penalizing someone for their life decisions. 

With systemic racism, the issue is that the system is penalizing people for being born black, not for any life choice that they made. 

Do you really not see a difference?

As mahagonny* pointed out there are life choices about whether to have children out of wedlock, whether to stay in the home where one has fathered a child, as well as whether to join a gang, etc. I don't believe any of those are gnetically-determined for people who are born black.

(*And Obama, Denzel Washington, and others)

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

   

There's a problem with that (source):

Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.

For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

Like, mass incarceration of Black men?

[marshwiggle]

Neither do I, but I do believe that these behaviors are self perpetuating and largely a result of decades/centuries of racism.   

There's a problem with that (source):

Between 1880 and 1960, the proportion of black children in single-parent
families exhibited a remarkable stability hovering in a narrow band around 20 percent. Then, abruptly, after
1960, this demographic equilibrium shattered as the proportion of black children in single-parent families
doubled between 1960 and 1980 then continued its sharp rise reaching a new stable demographic
equilibrium just above 50 percent near 1990.

For nearly a century after the end of slavery, there were vastly fewer fatherless homes. (And if slavery represents the worst degree of racism, then the collapse of families had to be due to something else.)

Like, mass incarceration of Black men?

So what activities were suddenly criminalized that hadn't been for the previous 80 years, resulting in those incarcerations?