Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 07:52:08 AM

Title: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 07:52:08 AM
Are you kidding me?

Why is it that everything must ALWAYS be about race?

Yes, there are people who are racist.  Yes, there are a lot of them.  Does that mean that any opinion held by me that is also held by a racist must necessarily be a racist opinion? 
For Crying Out Loud. 
Just b/c someone holds an opinion for racist reasons does not mean that everyone who holds that opinion is racist.

/rant
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 07:58:04 AM
 ::)

whatever
 :D
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: ->Soon on May 04, 2006, 07:58:58 AM
what brought this about?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 07:59:30 AM
About ten thousand comments over the past few months
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 08:00:05 AM
no, seriously, i am.  why don't people believe me? ???

ok, so how are you racist? against whom are you racist?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 08:03:03 AM
no, seriously, i am.  why don't people believe me? ???

ok, so how are you racist? against whom are you racist?

more or less everyone, in different ways.

 :D
for example?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 04, 2006, 08:06:59 AM
i'd rather not give those out.  i'm too well-known. 

suffice to say, there are some.  i'm not happy about it, and i'm working on it.  but they're there, and it would be a lie to pretend that they're not.

Ok, I'll accept that. 
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: ->Soon on May 04, 2006, 08:10:51 AM
id say most of us do subscribe to some stereotypes

a young black guy wearing baggy pant around his butt and a night shirt

a white guy covered in tatoos with a shaved head.

might be the greatest people, but certain biases will pop in your head when you see them.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: ->Soon on May 04, 2006, 09:17:19 AM
i consider myself to be an equal opportunity offender.

Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: ->Soon on May 04, 2006, 09:23:49 AM
yep.

im not racist at all.

i love ALL women  ;D

but i will bust on anyone.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: veg on May 04, 2006, 10:03:47 AM
everyone is a little bit racist.

especially margee. she could be a skinheads girlfriend.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: terralily on May 04, 2006, 10:14:05 AM
One of my favorite broadway songs is from Avenue Q....'Everyone's a Little Bit Racist'.  Crap its funny ...and true
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 05:50:09 AM
This thread interests me
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: SouthSide on May 05, 2006, 06:07:46 AM
I think virtually every controversy and issue in America has elements of race in it, sometimes right up front and sometimes lurking in the background. But it's always there. You can try to deny this, but it just makes more sense to acknowledge it and deal with it.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 06:19:18 AM
I think virtually every controversy and issue in America has elements of race in it, sometimes right up front and sometimes lurking in the background. But it's always there. You can try to deny this, but it just makes more sense to acknowledge it and deal with it.

Credited. And it's quite easy to expose, if one isn't squeamish about it.

This thread interests me

are you joking  ???

The original post interests me; everything after that, not so much.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: jorge on May 05, 2006, 06:24:38 AM
This thread interests me
I thought it was in response to something you said in the "This board makes me feel like a conservative thread. I'm frequently wrong about these things, though.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 06:33:18 AM
I tend to look for the structure of the argument rather than to the conclusion. It's more revealing that way. My inclination is to try to slowly get people to shift the grounds for their conclusions until they see that those conclusions are groundless unless framed in terms of who they care about and who they don't. Unfortunately, there's too much white noise in LSD threads to make that happen effectively.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 06:34:30 AM
This thread interests me
I thought it was in response to something you said in the "This board makes me feel like a conservative thread. I'm frequently wrong about these things, though.

Well, yes. Of course it was that.  ;)
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: cyberrev on May 05, 2006, 06:41:54 AM
I tend to look for the structure of the argument rather than to the conclusion. It's more revealing that way. My inclination is to try to slowly get people to shift the grounds for their conclusions until they see that those conclusions are groundless unless framed in terms of who they care about and who they don't. Unfortunately, there's too much white noise in LSD threads to make that happen effectively.

it's generally not a good idea to tell people what your strategy is.



unless it's an unstoppable force, much like the us' policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear strike.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 06:48:10 AM
I tend to look for the structure of the argument rather than to the conclusion. It's more revealing that way. My inclination is to try to slowly get people to shift the grounds for their conclusions until they see that those conclusions are groundless unless framed in terms of who they care about and who they don't. Unfortunately, there's too much white noise in LSD threads to make that happen effectively.

it's generally not a good idea to tell people what your strategy is.

unless it's an unstoppable force, much like the us' policy of massive retaliation in the event of a nuclear strike.

rev understands  :)

Plat:

An example; when someone says I'm anti-AA, for example, and speaks of "fairness" and "merit", I find it interesting and  am inclined to ask them to explore the terms merit and fairness, and go from there.

Another: when someone starts a thread on "muslim culture", I ask why they frame somoe actions and words by some individuals in terms of "islam" as opposed to something else, and work from there.

etc.

Much more interesting that way, for me definitely, and for them too, hopefully.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 06:54:00 AM
Unfortunately people appear too cowardly to outright state that they are racist -- nb. breadboy.

if they did, however, we would move on to psychoanalytic territory to explain it and keep it interesting for all
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:04:05 AM
Possible? Sure.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: conoroberst on May 05, 2006, 07:06:22 AM
I forgot who it was but somebody in the news recently said that racism isnt possible against white people.   Thats a load of crap.  If a pasty white person goes to a basketball court and tries to get in on some pickup games hes got almost no chance.  Its definitely not the biggest deal when it comes to racism, but racism exists against all races.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:07:29 AM
Possible? Sure.

Possible and actual.

Actual? Not that I've noticed on this board; not yet. Could be that I'm not paying enough attention, however.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: conoroberst on May 05, 2006, 07:09:47 AM
It was on MSNBC news or something like that when i was trying to fall asleep either last night or the night before.  It wasnt one of their analysts, it was someone that they were talking about.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: conoroberst on May 05, 2006, 07:12:00 AM
Yeah, my family is kind of funny.  On one side of my family you have a bunch of extremely religious white people who are racist against both african-americans and hispanics.  On the other side you have both white and black people who arent that religious but arent racist against any race at all.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:20:57 AM
Possible? Sure.

Possible and actual.

Actual? Not that I've noticed on this board; not yet. Could be that I'm not paying enough attention, however.

What if a non-racist opposed AA due to grounds that AA (as an implemented policy) itself is racist?

or, how about this trivial example:


A white racist boards a bus and sees only one available seat, which is next to an african-american.  He/she is a racist and for racist reasons does not sit in that seat.  Rather he/she continues to the back of the bus (near another white individual) and stands and holds the hand-hold.

The next stop.  A non-racist boards the bus.  She/he sees the one available seat but does not sit in it because she/he simply prefers to stand.  She/he stands and holds the hand-hold next to the african-american passenger

You're telling me the motivation of the persons standing in the second hypo. hard to argue that the person is motivated by race when you flatly claim that they're not.

In the first hypo, I'd lead off with a discussion of why AA is "racist". The answer, in mst cases, will be flimsy and the disparity between the strength of the conviction and the weakness of the rationale would lead to further exploration.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:21:26 AM
meh.  i wonder if red believes i'm racist.

I thought you said you were?  ;)
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 07:21:53 AM
A white racist boards a bus and sees only one available seat, which is next to an african-american.  He/she is a racist and for racist reasons does not sit in that seat.  Rather he/she continues to the back of the bus (near another white individual) and stands and holds the hand-hold.

The next stop.  A non-racist boards the bus.  She/he sees the one available seat but does not sit in it because she/he simply prefers to stand.  She/he stands and holds the hand-hold next to the african-american passenger.

i think her point is that most people fall into the racist category.

that's my point too!  just not all

perhaps my claim is weak.  but I believe it is valid.

I don't think it's weak, and I agree that it's valid.  Of course, this should come as no suprise since I started the thread...
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:22:50 AM
It was on MSNBC news or something like that when i was trying to fall asleep either last night or the night before.  It wasnt one of their analysts, it was someone that they were talking about.

Watching cable news is bad for your brain cells. js
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:25:02 AM

would you have realized otherwise?

also, as for AA, you don't think a program that specifically advantages social groups reinforces group identity?

Advantages?

Depends on the group.

Also, you're asian - i'd assume you were racist. j/k (maybe)
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: conoroberst on May 05, 2006, 07:25:29 AM
I agree red, it was complete trash.  Nothing else was on though and i was tired of flipping through.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:26:54 AM
Gotcha.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:32:53 AM
benefits?

It's not semantics. If someone believes that life starts and ends in the span of an application cycle, I can imagine them viewing AA as an advantage/benefit. Otherwise I don't get it.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:38:52 AM

You're telling me the motivation of the persons standing in the second hypo. hard to argue that the person is motivated by race when you flatly claim that they're not.

In the first hypo, I'd lead off with a discussion of why AA is "racist". The answer, in mst cases, will be flimsy and the disparity between the strength of the conviction and the weakness of the rationale would lead to further exploration.

It seems you want me to make an argument supporting a conclusion
(namely, I suppose, this one:
There are examples of ideas that are held by racists for racist reasons that are also held by non-racists for non-racist reasons.)

But you're not really putting any arguments contradicting that conclusion, either.  You're argument seems to be something like: all arguments (or at least: all I've seen) supporting such a conclusion are invalid.

I suppose my argument is something like: all arguments I've seen contradicting that conclusion are invalid.  (since I haven't seen any - but to be fair, I'm not sure there are any EDIT: any valid ones contradicting that conclusion)


You're losing me  ???
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:43:35 AM
<---rolls eyes.

okay, so for the purposes of applications ONLY, does one become very aware of one's race?

not sure what you're rolling your eyes about.

Sure - people apparently get disappointed in their LSAT score or admissions outcomes, look around, and pick on AA as the cause. I ask myself - why? It wouldn't be my own instinct to even think of AA as the reason why I failed, let alone to have such a strong view about it.  You'll notice that it's the borderline people - the people waitlisted or rejected by schools at which their numbers fall just short of the 25th percentile that go on a rant. Googler, for example, is a 3.57/173 and was dinged by Harvard.

Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:45:33 AM
I'm just saying this conclusion:

There are examples of ideas that are held by racists for racist reasons that are also held by non-racists for non-racist reasons

(or a different one if you prefer to list one)

is "on the table"


It seems you disagree with this conclusion. It seems to me that this is because you believe arguments supporting it are invalid rather than because there is a valid argument contradicting it.  If you have a valid argument contradicting it, I'm interested.

Oh, that's why I was lost. i thought that I had already stipulated that this was possible in principle. My position is that I haven't seen it yet on this board, which is not to say that it's not there.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:52:14 AM
i'm not talking about the AA bashers.  i'm talking about people who are URM.  do they become more conscious of the fact that they form a distinct group, and as a result start identifying more with other URM's than they would otherwise?

I have no reason to believe that they identify more with other URMs than otherwise, and I'm not sure that there's anything inherently wrong with it even if they did.

You're leading me somewhere, and I'm not sure about the destiination yet  :)
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 07:54:18 AM
<---rolls eyes.

okay, so for the purposes of applications ONLY, does one become very aware of one's race?

not sure what you're rolling your eyes about.

Sure - people apparently get disappointed in their LSAT score or admissions outcomes, look around, and pick on AA as the cause. I ask myself - why? It wouldn't be my own instinct to even think of AA as the reason why I failed, let alone to have such a strong view about it.  You'll notice that it's the borderline people - the people waitlisted or rejected by schools at which their numbers fall just short of the 25th percentile that go on a rant. Googler, for example, is a 3.57/173 and was dinged by Harvard.



Ok, let's take it out of the realm of ls apps.

Let's say a general contractor is selecting subcontractors for a job.  Company 1 employs mostly hispanics but is owned by a white male.  They have an excellent safety rating, an excellent reputation, always get the job done right/on time/etc.  Company 2 employs mostly hispanics but is owned by a black male.  They have a pretty good safety rating, a pretty good reputation, and they've only had a couple of jobs in which they didn't finish the job on time.  Now, the client for whom the GC is working has a policy regarding WAMOB (women and minority owned businesses) which means that the GC must select Company 2 because it is owned by a minority.

Would you say that there is a reason that does not include racism that one might oppose this?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:54:28 AM
I guess I'm saying that an argument contradicting it is not there, either.

Each case is particular. That's why I try and engage the person directly and have an extended back-and-forth, rather than giving a generic answer.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 07:58:54 AM
Ok, let's take it out of the realm of ls apps.

Let's say a general contractor is selecting subcontractors for a job.  Company 1 employs mostly hispanics but is owned by a white male.  They have an excellent safety rating, an excellent reputation, always get the job done right/on time/etc.  Company 2 employs mostly hispanics but is owned by a black male.  They have a pretty good safety rating, a pretty good reputation, and they've only had a couple of jobs in which they didn't finish the job on time.  Now, the client for whom the GC is working has a policy regarding WAMOB (women and minority owned businesses) which means that the GC must select Company 2 because it is owned by a minority.

Would you say that there is a reason that does not include racism that one might oppose this?

Is it possible? Maybe. It depends on a lot of things. It's not the conclusion, but the pattern of reasoniing that i look at.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 08:03:25 AM
 ::)

Fine.


I oppose this use of AA b/c it disadvantages company 1 based exclusively on race.  That in and of itself makes it racist.  Which I think is wrong.  Therefore, I oppose it.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:05:26 AM
there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but there is something wrong with it if what we want is to move toward a society where racial categories don't matter.  they'll continue to matter as long as members of a racial group identify more with each other than with nonmembers.  every time a person is treated one way or another based on their race, it just reinforces that identification because it makes them believe that they have more in common with other members.  

now obviously AA is outweighed by lots of other things in terms of identity formation, but still, it is a contributing factor.  probably small but still.

of course, if you don't care whether or not racial categories continue to matter, then it's all fine and good.

It depends on what you mean by "matter", and I'm not being a hairsplitter here.

There's nothing wrong with cultural/racial identity if it doesn't lead to hierarchical discrimination in the public sphere. That's what gives us diversity, and we should delight in it. in this sense, identity matters - but in a positive way.

Does AA make URMs as a group look down on others? Doubtful.
Does AA make others look down on URMs? It probably re-awakens and intensifies what was already there. And this second point would be a consideration in evaluating the merits of AA, but obviously only one of many considerations.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:08:42 AM
::)

Fine.


I oppose this use of AA b/c it disadvantages company 1 based exclusively on race.  That in and of itself makes it racist.  Which I think is wrong.  Therefore, I oppose it.

But what if you widen the frame, and think of it in public policy terms rather than solely in terms of what is better in that single transaction?

Clearly the client is the government in this case; the contract is probably cost+fee. if the client said that their reason for AA in the set-aside is to giv opportunities for black business to grow until they are eventually fully competitive, and if the government is picking up the cost of the differential, what would be your moral stance then?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:13:18 AM
I'll choose a common example: ancient Rome.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 08:17:44 AM
::)

Fine.


I oppose this use of AA b/c it disadvantages company 1 based exclusively on race.  That in and of itself makes it racist.  Which I think is wrong.  Therefore, I oppose it.

But what if you widen the frame, and think of it in public policy terms rather than solely in terms of what is better in that single transaction?

Clearly the client is the government in this case; the contract is probably cost+fee. if the client said that their reason for AA in the set-aside is to giv opportunities for black business to grow until they are eventually fully competitive, and if the government is picking up the cost of the differential, what would be your moral stance then?

How about we just talk about this single transaction.  My position was clearly framed in the context of the specific, I have made no assertions about public policy.

The client is not clearly the government.  In fact, I was thinking about several such clients that my company deals with on a regular basis, clients that are very much not the government.

The contract is not necessarily cost+fee, though I'm not sure how you think this is germane.
The reason given for AA is to give opportunity so that the WAMOB can be competitive.
However, company 2 (and other similar companies) are already just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications.  The ONLY distinction is that they are owned by a minority.  As stated before, we're not dealing with the government. 


Do you consider my position/my reasoning to be racist?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:20:20 AM
Do you support AA as national policy?  Why?

I think an argument in favor of AA might (generally) be: it does more good than harm.

I would ask to whom does it do more harm?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:31:57 AM
How about we just talk about this single transaction.  My position was clearly framed in the context of the specific, I have made no assertions about public policy.

The client is not clearly the government.  In fact, I was thinking about several such clients that my company deals with on a regular basis, clients that are very much not the government.

The contract is not necessarily cost+fee, though I'm not sure how you think this is germane.
The reason given for AA is to give opportunity so that the WAMOB can be competitive.
However, company 2 (and other similar companies) are already just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications.  The ONLY distinction is that they are owned by a minority.  As stated before, we're not dealing with the government. 

Well your argument is looking a bit shaky, even though it's still early.  :D

1. You say the Co. 2 is "just as competitive", even though your hypo states that it underperforms.

2. You say that this transaction is racist - thereby placing it frmly within a pattern - but you're not willing to examine the pattern, and want to stay narrowly focused on a single transaction.

3. the whole rationale of minority set-asides is that they are (intended) as a blunt instrument to counteract a pattern. Right?

4. if the client is a private entity, and their purpose is to advertise the fact that they're contracting out to minority groups so that they earn goodwill points, why not characterise this as a commercial reason for the set aside program, rather than as racism?

Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:32:49 AM
i think AA probably does less harm than good, but that's just depending on how big the backlash is.

it does do harm in the sense of reinforcing racial identities, if you consider that a harm.  personally it's okay with me.

Gotcha.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:35:19 AM

margee's hypothetical contractor, for one.  But taking the wider view you recommended, does AA not do more good than harm and therefore should one not support it?

Wait. you think that the general contractor is the only entity involved in margee's transaction? is the minroty firm not a factor in the cost-benefit calculus? Why?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:38:21 AM
i think AA probably does less harm than good, but that's just depending on how big the backlash is.

it does do harm in the sense of reinforcing racial identities, if you consider that a harm.  personally it's okay with me.

Gotcha.

are you agreeing with me or dismissing me?

I don't think that strengthened racial, cultural, whatever identity is in itself a bad thing. You seem to have said the same, although I had thought that you were using that as a piller for an argument as to why AA might be bad. the other pillar, i thought, was going to be that AA causes a hierarchy effect that dominates its benefits, but you're not claiming that either.

So, I guess we agree? right?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:44:15 AM
actually, what i was saying was that AA (in terms of admissions at least) results in small increase in group identification, which opens up increased potential for hierarchy effect, as well as a small increase in the hierarchy effect.  i think that both are probably outweighed by benefits, but they do exist as effects that would be negative if we don't want a hierarchy.

I believe the same thing.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:46:42 AM

margee's hypothetical contractor, for one.  But taking the wider view you recommended, does AA not do more good than harm and therefore should one not support it?

Wait. you think that the general contractor is the only entity involved in margee's transaction? is the minroty firm not a factor in the cost-benefit calculus? Why?

See quote below.

Do you support AA as national policy?  Why?

I think an argument in favor of AA might (generally) be: it does more good than harm.

I would ask to whom does it do more harm?


I'm not sure what you meant be "more" harm.  I'm saying AA does more good.  If you just meant who does it harm, then I'm referring to that contractor. 

And yes, both contractors, as well as the overall +/- affects on society factor into the cost benefit.

I have no idea what you're saying (or asking). honest.

Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:50:12 AM
good, then we agree.

as an aside, what we do disagree on is the potential for race categories without hierarchy.  this i believe is due to you having more faith in people than i do.  would you accept that as an explanation?

People's nature is not fixed: it is created by the culture that they live in. I don't necessarily have more faith in people than you do, i just believe that if we create a culture that incrementally creates an atmosphere were diversity and equality are increasingky respected, future generations will come to think of this as natural. Think of the difference between women's status and men's over th last hundred years, or of the status of Italian-Americans over the same time period.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 08:53:59 AM
How about we just talk about this single transaction.  My position was clearly framed in the context of the specific, I have made no assertions about public policy.

The client is not clearly the government.  In fact, I was thinking about several such clients that my company deals with on a regular basis, clients that are very much not the government.

The contract is not necessarily cost+fee, though I'm not sure how you think this is germane.
The reason given for AA is to give opportunity so that the WAMOB can be competitive.
However, company 2 (and other similar companies) are already just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications.  The ONLY distinction is that they are owned by a minority.  As stated before, we're not dealing with the government. 

Well your argument is looking a bit shaky, even though it's still early.  :D

1. You say the Co. 2 is "just as competitive", even though your hypo states that it underperforms.

2. You say that this transaction is racist - thereby placing it frmly within a pattern - but you're not willing to examine the pattern, and want to stay narrowly focused on a single transaction.

3. the whole rationale of minority set-asides is that they are (intended) as a blunt instrument to counteract a pattern. Right?

4. if the client is a private entity, and their purpose is to advertise the fact that they're contracting out to minority groups so that they earn goodwill points, why not characterise this as a commercial reason for the set aside program, rather than as racism?


1. no, I say it's "just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications."  Meaning, it is just as competitive as a third company that has a pretty good safety rating, a pretty good reputation, and has only had a couple of jobs in which they didn't finish the job on time.

2. I'm sorry, I thought that we had accepted the premise that racism is wrong.  I didn't realize there were exceptions.  You were trying to get me to talk about public policy, which I'm not interested in doing, and which was not part of my question.  If you have a question about what I mean by "racism" then we can talk about that, but my beef lies in the implementation of AA in specific instances.  I'm not interested in cost/benefit analysis for the greater good.  I'm interested in whether or not it's ok in this instance.  If you're not interested in answering my question, then just say so.

3.  Probably, but this is a greater good kind of argument.  Hurt a couple of people so that we can benefit the masses.  As stated before, I'm not interested in that, and that's not what my question was.

4.  Yes, why not?  But what if the client was contracting out to only whites to earn goodwill points from the locals who are primarily white supremacists?  Sure, you can put a spin on it.  You can look at it from different angles.  It's all about what matters more to you.  If giving an advantage to minorities is more important to you than giving equal opportunity to all, then yes, go ahead and look at it that way.  But whatever you call it, whether you say it's "a commercial reason for the set aside program" or not, it's still giving preferential treatment to one person and creating a disadvantage for another based solely on race.

5. I don't think one should give preferential treatment to or create a disadvantage for a person based solely on race. 

6. Therefore, I do not support the application of AA in this instance.

7. Do you think that my position or my reasoning behind that position is racist?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:55:37 AM

Fair enough.  I'll start from scratch.

Are there are examples of ideas that are held by racists for racist reasons that are also held by non-racists for legitimate non-racist reasons?

Earlier you said this was possible.  I'm trying to see how much stronger, if any, this claim can be.  ie, can someone oppose AA and not be a racist?

Sure it's possible. I just haven't seen it done yet. Didn't I say this before?

Also, prejudice more broadly, is more my focus of interest;  racism is only interesting to me as an example of the broader category.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: cob on May 05, 2006, 08:56:50 AM
I see that I am a little late here but I was wondering if anyone has discussed whether there should be separate approaches to affirmative action for public and private institutions.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:57:43 AM
i'm sure you dislike the idea of homogenization?

I dislike the idea of forced homogeneization. People should be free to define themselves in any way that they'd like - and difference should be as valid a choice as assimilation.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 08:58:20 AM
I see that I am a little late here but I was wondering if anyone has discussed whether there should be separate approaches to affirmative action for public and private institutions.

This is not an AA thread. i'm sure it looks like one, but it's not.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: cob on May 05, 2006, 09:03:15 AM
I see that I am a little late here but I was wondering if anyone has discussed whether there should be separate approaches to affirmative action for public and private institutions.

This is not an AA thread. i'm sure it looks like one, but it's not.

Sorry about that. I will not peruse it any further then.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 09:09:39 AM
1. no, I say it's "just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications."  Meaning, it is just as competitive as a third company that has a pretty good safety rating, a pretty good reputation, and has only had a couple of jobs in which they didn't finish the job on time.

2. I'm sorry, I thought that we had accepted the premise that racism is wrong.  I didn't realize there were exceptions.  You were trying to get me to talk about public policy, which I'm not interested in doing, and which was not part of my question.  If you have a question about what I mean by "racism" then we can talk about that, but my beef lies in the implementation of AA in specific instances.  I'm not interested in cost/benefit analysis for the greater good.  I'm interested in whether or not it's ok in this instance.  If you're not interested in answering my question, then just say so.

3.  Probably, but this is a greater good kind of argument.  Hurt a couple of people so that we can benefit the masses.  As stated before, I'm not interested in that, and that's not what my question was.

4.  Yes, why not?  But what if the client was contracting out to only whites to earn goodwill points from the locals who are primarily white supremacists?  Sure, you can put a spin on it.  You can look at it from different angles.  It's all about what matters more to you.  If giving an advantage to minorities is more important to you than giving equal opportunity to all, then yes, go ahead and look at it that way.  But whatever you call it, whether you say it's "a commercial reason for the set aside program" or not, it's still giving preferential treatment to one person and creating a disadvantage for another based solely on race.

5. I don't think one should give preferential treatment to or create a disadvantage for a person based solely on race. 

6. Therefore, I do not support the application of AA in this instance.

7. Do you think that my position or my reasoning behind that position is racist?

I had to read through a lot of very poor reasoning to find the germ of your response, which i've bolded. You have a definite slant. You sound pissed, and the structure of your argument is getting worse and worse - maybe the worst that I've seen yet.

Is your position a racist one? Well, at the moment I'm willing to say that it's a position that is so poorly reasoned that I'd begin to suspect that it might be, although I couldn't be anywhere near sure enough.

It is interesting, also, that you hold such a strong view about something that you haven't thought about very hard, or for very long. That would be something that I'd explore too.

Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 09:11:32 AM

If that's possible, can that claim be made stronger: ie, can someone oppose AA and not be
prejudiced?

Sure they can. Depends on how they hold their reasons and what those reasons are.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 09:12:19 AM
wow.  just wow.

What?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 09:29:11 AM
1. no, I say it's "just as competitive as other companies with the same qualifications."  Meaning, it is just as competitive as a third company that has a pretty good safety rating, a pretty good reputation, and has only had a couple of jobs in which they didn't finish the job on time.

2. I'm sorry, I thought that we had accepted the premise that racism is wrong.  I didn't realize there were exceptions.  You were trying to get me to talk about public policy, which I'm not interested in doing, and which was not part of my question.  If you have a question about what I mean by "racism" then we can talk about that, but my beef lies in the implementation of AA in specific instances.  I'm not interested in cost/benefit analysis for the greater good.  I'm interested in whether or not it's ok in this instance.  If you're not interested in answering my question, then just say so.

3.  Probably, but this is a greater good kind of argument.  Hurt a couple of people so that we can benefit the masses.  As stated before, I'm not interested in that, and that's not what my question was.

4.  Yes, why not?  But what if the client was contracting out to only whites to earn goodwill points from the locals who are primarily white supremacists?  Sure, you can put a spin on it.  You can look at it from different angles.  It's all about what matters more to you.  If giving an advantage to minorities is more important to you than giving equal opportunity to all, then yes, go ahead and look at it that way.  But whatever you call it, whether you say it's "a commercial reason for the set aside program" or not, it's still giving preferential treatment to one person and creating a disadvantage for another based solely on race.

5. I don't think one should give preferential treatment to or create a disadvantage for a person based solely on race. 

6. Therefore, I do not support the application of AA in this instance.

7. Do you think that my position or my reasoning behind that position is racist?

I had to read through a lot of very poor reasoning to find the germ of your response, which i've bolded. You have a definite slant. You sound pissed, and the structure of your argument is getting worse and worse - maybe the worst that I've seen yet.

Is your position a racist one? Well, at the moment I'm willing to say that it's a position that is so poorly reasoned that I'd begin to suspect that it might be, although I couldn't be anywhere near sure enough.

It is interesting, also, that you hold such a strong view about something that you haven't thought about very hard, or for very long. That would be something that I'd explore too.


The structure of my argument hasn't changed.  You keep asking irrelevant questions to which I try to respond.  The reason it's so garbled is because your responses are so.

So let's try this again. 

-I don't think one should give preferential treatment to or create a disadvantage for a person based solely on race.
and
-giving equal opportunity to all parties involved in this transaction is more important to me than giving an advantage to minorities.
Therefore
-I do not support the application of AA in this instance

That is the entirety of my position

And perhaps the reason I "sound pissed" is because I don't take kindly to condescension, especially when it's unwarranted.

 
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 09:58:48 AM
The structure of my argument hasn't changed.  You keep asking irrelevant questions to which I try to respond.  The reason it's so garbled is because your responses are so.

So let's try this again. 

1 -I don't think one should give preferential treatment to or create a disadvantage for a person based solely on race.
and

2 -giving equal opportunity to all parties involved in this transaction is more important to me than giving an advantage to minorities.
Therefore

3 -I do not support the application of AA in this instance

That is the entirety of my position

And perhaps the reason I "sound pissed" is because I don't take kindly to condescension, especially when it's unwarranted. 

#1 seems reasonable to me, and I think that both pro-AA and anti-AA arguments would agree with it (I'll let the word "solely" ride for the moment, unless it becomes relevant later)

#2 seems problematic in the second half of the sentence. Specifically, the phrase "equal opportunity", and the word "advantage" are quietly sweeping away the justification for AA in the first place - that AA is designed in order to sweep away at least some of the systematic disadvantages that minorities face in this class of transaction.

#3 the hidden assumption between 2 and 3 make the conclusion false. Specifically, and apart from my commentary on the problems with #2, you seem to be suggesting that no black-owned firm could or would adequately substitute for Co. 2 - that is, if you allowed the frame to be widened in ways that were not selective and systematically biased to make an anti-AA conclusion possible.

But of course the "hidden assumptions" are being explicitly swept under the rug in your argument, thereby suppressing the rationale for AA in the first place, and making an anti-AA conclusion more attractive.

What makes this interesting, then, is why you would frame the debate in this way. Why ignore the possibility of systematic discrimination in the contracting industry, and that affirmative action iin this transaction is a blunt countermeasure, but maybe the best one that we have? Why ignore the public policy perspective? Why necessarily characterize the client's perhaps commercial incentive as necessarily racist? Why in fact make an analogy with contracting with a "whites only" firm, rather than an analogy with a woman-owned enterprise? etc.

All of the ways that you have set up the hypo show a profound bias to reaching the conclusion that AA (for minorities) is bad. That, I think you'd agree, would pique the interest of an outside observer who would ask "why is she doing that?".

You've said it yourself - "you can spin this anyway you want; it's all about what matters to you". We agree there.

(Not trying to piss you off, by the way, although that may be inevitable - I'm doing my best to answer your question directly and without evasion, and to show you why it is that I believe what I believe.)
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 10:21:46 AM
I framed the question that way quite intentionally.  You are right, I intentionally excluded the broader implications of systematic disadvantages for minorities.  I didn't do this to support or oppose AA in the broader sense, I did it because I wanted to present an opinion that was held by racists but that I do not hold for racist reasons.  I have not made up my mind on whether or not AA is good/beneficial to the nation/community as a whole.  There are instances in which I do not think it should be applied, but whether or not that sacrifice is worth making in order to benefit the many, I do not know.


As for the hidden assumption, I am making no such assumption.  A subcontracting firm owned by a black man could indeed be the most qualified for the job.  In that instance, however, there is no issue of AA and therefore the question is moot. 


As for your qualms about #2, I am fine with dropping #2 from the argument (which is why I didn't include it initially).  #1 is sufficient for me to hold the conclusion.  For me, #2 is just an additive, something I felt I should include because you seemed so intent on including the broader frame.


So here we are again. 

In this instance I do not think the application of AA is good/fair/right/etc.
Do you consider my opinion or my reasoning to be racist?

Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 10:33:27 AM
Ah well. Without the broader implications of systematic disadvantage, there would be no such thing as affirmative action. What we would have instead is preference by race for no particular reason. That can't be right, and it wouldn't be fair. Your position in this kind of scenario, then, would not be racist, but it would also not be, by denition, against affirmative action, even in this instance.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 10:42:25 AM
Ok, so aparently I was unclear.  This instance occurs in the context of a nation/time where systematic disadvantages do occur.  What I'm trying to avoid is a debate about the prevalence and concentration of these disadvantages.  I think it would be reasonable to assume that not every single black male subcontractor is equally disadvantaged due to their race.  So, let's say that this particular black male has not been disadvantaged in any discernable way, but that he exists in a world where others are.  But, I'm still not talking about the policy of AA, I'm just talking about its application in this instance.

Clearer?
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 10:50:20 AM
If you know for a fact that this particular contractor is not disadvantaged because of his race, then the application of AA in this instance is wrong. That's why AA is a blunt instrument; it works against a presumption of racism across a class of stituations.

To be against the use of AA in this instance - to be distinguished from being against AA overall, and presuming a knowledge that (conscious or unconscious) racism is not at all a factor in this particular contracting situation - would be reasonable.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: Cree83 on May 05, 2006, 10:53:05 AM
Ok, so aparently I was unclear.  This instance occurs in the context of a nation/time where systematic disadvantages do occur.  What I'm trying to avoid is a debate about the prevalence and concentration of these disadvantages.  I think it would be reasonable to assume that not every single black male subcontractor is equally disadvantaged due to their race.  So, let's say that this particular black male has not been disadvantaged in any discernable way, but that he exists in a world where others are.  But, I'm still not talking about the policy of AA, I'm just talking about its application in this instance.

Clearer?

margee, i don't think your reasoning is racist but i don't think that these people exist in this country at this time.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: 12(e) on May 05, 2006, 10:54:16 AM
*sigh of relief*

thank god that's over  :D

so there we have it.  an opinion that is also held by racists but is not held for racist reasons.
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: redemption on May 05, 2006, 10:59:13 AM
I think we've been here before, margee.  ;)
Title: Re: OMFG
Post by: LitDoc on May 05, 2006, 11:10:07 AM
If all you wanted was an opinion that could be held by racists, but also held by non-racists for non-racist reasons, I could have given you a million examples. Here's one:

Trees are pretty.

 ;)

My point? One of the problems I'm seeing in this exchange is the uncareful way in which some things are being worded. Red says your argument is "garbled" and you (margee) keep acknowledging that "apparently" you're not being clear. (I'm not sure how someone can actually be clear, while being "apparently" unclear.) I think it's quite apparent that this debate has been fomented by a lack of clarity.

What you're (more clearly) looking for, margee, I think, is examples of opinions about race -- or positions held with regard to race -- that can be held by both racists and non-racists alike (i.e. for both/either racist and/or non-racist reasons).

I'm not convinced that you have actually found one.