What’s the argument for racial discrimination to achieve racial justice? Do you understand it well enough to explain it in your own words?
Translation:
“Typical Liberal MO – finding perfect counterexamples showing I have not thought seriously about the words coming out of my mouth, instead of posting something long.”
Nothing, because he’s dead. But if I’d asked him at the time, I think he would have said that it’s more complicated than your description, since he clearly advocated programs that would discriminate based on skin color, for the purpose of remediating past wrongs.
As for your water fountain example, it has fuckall to do with what I said. I’d call it a nice try, but it’s clearly not. If you’re not going to discuss the issue in good faith, call it a night.
All programs must be strictly neutral, without any regard for need.
The fire department dumped a bunch of water on my neighbor’s house; they must, now, also dump the same amount of water on every house in the city.
Anything else fits Terr’s definition of discrimination.
It fits both of the criteria you posted for the “good” racial discrimination.
It’s stupid and clearly not in good faith, but you’re right. There should have been a third criterion:
c) is the best practical way achieve goals a and b.
So, how do you make that connection? Again, are you going to audit everyone who’s been historically enslaved, historically pushed into ghettoes, historically had their resources plundered by the majority, historically used as a scapegoat to distract from domestic issues, or historically had a great mass of the majority mob up and kill them for not a lot of reason, then determine the harm done based on the current social standing of those groups?
There were a lot of people 60 to 70 years ago who were completely happy with separate but equal, and whose common sense and lived experience said it was obviously the right thing.
Is it?
Allow me to respond in the manner of my people: is it? Do you expect a given dollar amount to erase centuries of continent-wide systemic discrimination?
I think the answer is pretty clearly no. But if you think that the reason that us Jews are a model minority were those reparations, then hey, I’m willing to explore that theory.
And yes, LHoD, separate-but-equal across unequal groups does fit your criteria for good discrimination. I mean, as long as we’re talking educational opportunities, why stop there? Why not separate out chess leagues by race? Hell, why not go full hog as mentioned earlier and go back to having segregated sports teams of all types? That will provide increased opportunities for all, and everyone can compete within their racial bloc. We won’t need to worry about black students taking the place of deserving Asian students if we just make separate Harvards for each racial group.
Remember that ecology ad years ago, had the American Indian guy weeping about what the hairy faces had done to his country? Iron Eyes Cody, his name is. The ad is mawkish, solemn and entirely too earnest, but the cause is dear to me so I’m inclined to be generous. I sneer a bit, but my lip doesn’t actually curl…
Anyway, the ad would not have been improved by hiring Joe Pesci instead of Iron Eyes Cody. Needs an Indian, needs an Indian for a good and justifiable reason. What wretched form of racism is this?
It’s tough. I think one of the best arguments against reparations is that you’re either very very crude with who gets the benefits, or it is very very complicated to administer (and therefore probably ineffective).
But that’s one of the reasons I’m not so hot on reparations. It’s not that relevant to the actual point I proposed, which was that particular race-conscious policies may be justified and necessary as a result of centuries of plunder.
If you take me to be making an argument that common sense and lived experience are the sole criterion for policymaking, I’m not. Far from it. My rather more limited point was that the assertion that we’re completely incapable of line-drawing when it comes to suffering is false.
Erase, no. Make a difference? Maybe. Why do you think Israel and Germany did it? Just the symbolism?
See my last post.
This is seriously stupid. Picking a black man to play a black man role in a movie is not discrimination based on skin color. It is discrimination based on fitness for the role.
Sure, because your example of picking a black man for a black man role in a movie was in such good faith.
Oh, that’s a horrible example, because Iron Eyes Cody was an Italian, who faked being an Indian. I’m surprised you don’t know that. They actually did hire “Joe Pesci”, in a manner of speaking.
If I took it at your word, then it’s a useless criteria; there’s no way of determining if a given bit of discrimination is the best way to make groups more equal. It’s like advocating for surgery when there are other non-traumatic therapies available.
Is race-based discrimination the only way to bump up black attendance in colleges? Clearly not; we could instead institute needs-based discrimination. This would have the happy side-effect of also helping disadvantaged people from an advantaged racial group, and of excluding advantaged members of disadvantaged groups from getting additional aid.
So, does this mean you’re now on my side about racial discrimination in college admissions being the bad kind of discrimination?
Ha! Glad I do, because its funny. Next thing, Chief Dan George is Polish!
Tropic Thunder
So, for the job of portraying a black man in a movie, a black man is most “fit” for the job, and hiring him is not racism. Best fit for the job. OK, suppose your business is selling stocks and bonds to rich white folks. Some non-zero number of whom are bigots. Who probably won’t trust a black salesman/investment counselor.
So the black guy is not the best “fit” for the job, because the white guy will get just as many of the non-bigoted customers, and more of the flaming assholes as well. So, the white guy is the better “fit” for the job.
See, I think we have to move on all fronts, here. Break down the racism of the bigots who won’t trust a black man, the racism of the guy who might not hire a black man, and the oppression of the black man who is discouraged from even trying. A Hydra with a thousand heads, but nobody said anything about “easy”.
Racism is not a discrete entity, it is not a single thing. It is a descriptive for a variety of things, a shorthand. Only in that sense is your “cancer is cancer” workable.
Oh for Christ’s sake. What, pray tell, makes Brad Pitt not fit for the role?
It was. My point is that your axiom is not one you really believe in (notice your weaseling when called out on it). You, like everyone else, believes that discrimination based on skin color is appropriate under some circumstances, and not others. You are attempting to shut down all discussion of WHEN it’s appropriate with your “DISCRIMINATION BAD!!!” mantra, but it’s not one you actually believe.
I’m interested in results. Can you show me that this works as well? If so, then absolutely I’d prefer needs-based discrimination. My understanding, no cite, is that it doesn’t work as well.
You’re doubling down on stupidity. It’s not racial discrimination. Just like not hiring Brad Pitt for the role of Juliette is not sexism.
See, I’m being completely sincere here: I cannot believe that you’re not backing down on this. Of fucking course Brad Pitt is not suitable for the role because he’s not black. Of course he’s going to be discriminated against because he’s not black. And that’s okay. I genuinely 100% cannot see how you are denying any bit of this.
This is a case where you need to back down, or else you need to explain how refusing to cast a white actor for a role because of the color of his skin is not discriminating against that actor because of the color of his skin.
Just saw your edit. Not casting Brad Pitt as Juliet IS SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION! It’s not sexism, though, any more than not casting Brad Pitt as MLK is racism. The terms are not interchangeable.