What happened to Bricker?

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

I’m advocating a color-blind, employment-blind, height-blind, weight-blind, results-blind system that treats each and every voter identically. If I were to learn that the result of this were that plumbers couldn’t elect even one plumber to the House, I would not withdraw my support for the system.

Did you not notice that I didn’t ask about plumbers? I asked about minorities. I asked about people who have historically been persecuted by our system, and who have justifiable grievances even now in the way they are treated. Outside of Mario World, plumbers have not faced the kinds of persecution that minorities have.

So, just to get this straight and on the record, if you were aware of the effects of a policy is to marginalize minorities, and shut them out of the political process, furthering their ostracization from housing, employment, educational and economic opportunities, you would have no problem with that policy, as that policy is the law. That the minorities, if they want to be represented in government, should simply not be minorities? That those shut out of the political process should have no options except through the political process? You say that each voter should be treated identically, so by definition, you don’t care about people who have been disenfranchised.

I can see that. I can see how you can feel that a principle that was made by our rather racist forefathers for the purpose of elevating their race at the expense of others is more sacrosanct and important than the actual lives of people harmed by those principles.

Do you see how less enlightened and more cynical members of your ilk may instead of using these principles as a neutral justification for explaining why we have oppressed populations, but instead as a tool or even a weapon in order to extend and further that oppression? Do you see how your completely level, honest, and open defenses of these principles defends the policies that are made by those who are completely level, honest, and open that the policies that they spout are for the purpose or harming minorities?

For an extreme example, should you have found yourself in 1930’s Germany, would you feel that the treatment of “undesirables” to be the results of a “color-blind, employment-blind, height-blind, weight-blind, results-blind system that treats each and every voter identically” and continue to support the system, or would you recognize that there is an injustice being done, and withdraw your support?

See what I mean now?

No.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@k9bfriender

So, just to get this straight and on the record, if you were aware of the effects of a policy is to marginalize minorities, and shut them out of the political process, furthering their ostracization from housing, employment, educational and economic opportunities, you would have no problem with that policy, as that policy is the law.

You bet he’d be cool with that. He’s the HK Edgerton* of the voter suppression movement, if HK Edgerton were also really good at providing legal analysis.

This is why I have zero interest in his moral pontifications.

• Google him

[Shodan]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I’ll be frank - the degree to which this is constitutional interests me only to the degree that you can use that unconstitutionality to make this abortion of a districting fuck off.

I appreciate your frankness, and I suspect this attitude is widely shared on the SDMB.

The difficulty comes when someone argues “this is un-Constitutional” or “this is illegal” in the sense of “this doesn’t get me what I want”, Bricker is going to come along and point out the ways in which it is neither un-Constitutional nor illegal, and cite the case law that shows he is right. Then we get Pittings and whining about how unfair it is to point out that “un-Constitutional” and “illegal” doesn’t mean “give me what I want”.

And then we get moronic stuff like this -

@septimus

So Starving Artist sees no difference between honest policy disagreements and blatant criminality, hypocrisy and corruption. Got it.

Because septimus said “Starving Artist” - but he should have said “half the people in this thread”. And should Bricker or anyone else point this out, or that “blatant criminality” refers to behavior that is actually against the law, he would immediately descend* into frothingly incoherent abuse with multiple changes in font size, emphasis, and spacing.

Regards,
Shodan

*OK, generally it would be an improvement rather than a descent, but let’s not quibble.

[septimus]

@Starving_Artist

I went overboard in my insults to Starving Artist. I apologize.

I wonder if those who think “all politicians are the same anyway” can grasp the utter depth of frustration that we rationalists feel knowing that our great country has been taken over by blatant criminals. That frustration belches out in misdirected anger.

But seriously, Starving, while I’m reminded of your believing Trump’s lie about his Wharton diploma: Can you imagine your own invective if one of the liberals you detest lied like this? Why can’t you take the time to unequivocally denounce Trump? The Wharton lie wouldn’t even make the Top Fifty list of Trump’s sins, lies and crimes.

[Bricker]

@Cheesesteak

Do you think Dems are looking for House districts that help minority voters have more impact than an equal number of white voters? I don’t. At best they’re looking to get that crooked system unskewed from where it is today.

Rural white voters have more influence than urban minority voters in electing the President and members of the Senate, thanks to the basic structure of our electoral system and the Senate itself. Thanks to gerrymandering, in many states, rural white voters have more influence in electing members of the House as well.

If you have anything resembling an objective vision of what’s fair, outside of what’s legal, you’d concede that re-gerrymandering the House in favor of urban minorities is a step towards making the whole system fair.

This is why I don’t debate “fair.”

I know what’s fair, and it ain’t that. Fair is EQUAL. Fair is treating every single person in a state identically; fair is placing no special benefits or special restrictions in any system based on race.

Fair is also adhering to agreements that were made. The small states adopted the Constitution because they were promised equal representation in the Senate to the large states, regardless of population. It would be UNFAIR to secure that agreement and then renege on the system without the new consent of the affected states.

But you see it differently. That’s fine. There is no objective measure to resolve the dispute.

So we stick the what’s legal. That, at least, has mechanisms to resolve disputes.

Or we could arm wrestle, winner gets to decide all issues of “fair.” Your call.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Shodan

I appreciate your frankness, and I suspect this attitude is widely shared on the SDMB.

The difficulty comes when someone argues “this is un-Constitutional” or “this is illegal” in the sense of “this doesn’t get me what I want”, Bricker is going to come along and point out the ways in which it is neither un-Constitutional nor illegal, and cite the case law that shows he is right. Then we get Pittings and whining about how unfair it is to point out that “un-Constitutional” and “illegal” doesn’t mean “give me what I want”.

I mean, do you disagree with this? Because fundamentally, we’re dealing with people trying to subvert democracy. Imagine if, by some bizarre way, democrats pushed a constitutional amendment to strip the vote of anyone who supported Trump - clearly not unconstitutional, but if that’s what you care about at that moment, your priorities are skewed. A constitution that cannot protect democracy ain’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

[octopus]

@k9bfriender

If you are complaining about how some level of gerrymandering was done with the intent of ensuring that minorities do not get drowned out, and that they actually have a voice and representation, I may also point out to you that doing so actually costs the party that those minorities tend to vote for power.

I don’t know if such redistricting is still necessary to ensure that minorities are not completely shut out of the political process. If it is, then yes, the desired result is not that we shut out minorities from the political process, and concessions will continue to be made. If it is decided that it is not, that minority can still get a decent representation without playing with the district lines, the I would agree with a topologically compact system.

Put it this way, if you knew that using such a system would ensure that minorities did not have representation in congress, would you still advocate for it?

If you can vote you are not shut out. The only guarantee you should have is each eligible person can vote. The system shouldn’t be rigged for demographic representation. Why does a woman need a woman, a man need a man, an Italian-American need an Italian-American to represent them? The idea that we need proportional representation or even rigged token ethnic, sexual or gender identity, religious, racial, or party affiliation is wack.

[octopus]

@Huey_Freeman

<shrug>

There’s nothing wrong with identity politics. People have an issue with identity politics because, among other things, "identity politics" disrupts individualism - a pillar of white liberalism and white supremacy. Identity politics brought us 43 white male Presidents . . . in a row and it was never an issue in mainstream discourse until Obama was elected by people of color. Do you remember in 2002 where GWB talked about the scourge of identity politics poisoning our political climate? Or perhaps you remember Reagan in 1985 talking about how we shouldn’t engage in identity politics? Nope, me neither. You’re absolutely correct that Bricker has the freedom to support whatever causes he wants to. He should. But I’m free to infer that he resides in the same sunken place whereJoe Gomez of FAIR, Clarence Thomas, Sheriff Clark, Herman Cain, and Alan Keyes roam. And, there is nothing wrong with being in the sunken place; in fact, from what I can infer from the movie Get Out, the pay and benefits are excellent.

White supremacy is so powerful that your anti white and racist rants barely raise on eyebrow. Why do you even try?

[andros]

@octopus

The system shouldn’t be rigged for demographic representation…

So you oppose partisan gerrymandering, then?

[Alessan]

@Bricker

But you see it differently. That’s fine. There is no objective measure to resolve the dispute.

.

See, that’s what you don’t get. That’s why people accuse you of debating like a lawyer instead of like a human being. You don’t resolve a dispute using objective measures - you do it using subjective ones. You argue and argue - subjectively - until one or more of you changes their mind.

Do you get that?

[octopus]

@andros

So you oppose partisan gerrymandering, then?

That’s not how I’d make districts. I’d have a computer make them so the shapes weren’t so crazy and had equal number of people. But I don’t write the laws and I’m not even sure how to write a law like that.

[Cheesesteak]

@Bricker

This is why I don’t debate “fair.”

I know what’s fair, and it ain’t that. Fair is EQUAL. Fair is treating every single person in a state identically; fair is placing no special benefits or special restrictions in any system based on race.

I could live with that. If districting treated every person identically, placing no special benefits or restrictions, that would work for me. To me, that DOES disallow creating districts of bizarre shapes for the express purpose of maximizing Republican (or Democrat) representation in Congress. Treat people equally, do not treat people you expect to vote Democrat differently than people you expect to vote Republican.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

If you can vote you are not shut out. The only guarantee you should have is each eligible person can vote. The system shouldn’t be rigged for demographic representation. Why does a woman need a woman, a man need a man, an Italian-American need an Italian-American to represent them? The idea that we need proportional representation or even rigged token ethnic, sexual or gender identity, religious, racial, or party affiliation is wack.

I did not say that a woman needs a woman, or a man a man, or an Italian American needs an Italian american. I did not say these things, not at all.

What I did say is that minorities had no voice in the political process. They can elect a white guy or a woman, or whoever. The point is, is that there is someone who was actually elected by them, which means that they have a voice. If there is no one that is elected by the minorities, then they have no voice, no one to represent their interests.

This was especially important when minorities were coming out of a time when they were denied the ability to vote at all, based on poll tests and taxes. Whether it is still necessary is something that I am happy to revisit. Whether it was necessary at the time is not. In any case, as stated, the decision to use redistricting in order to ensure minorities were not shut out of the political process harms democrats and helps Republicans.

You think that it is wack that minorities needed a voice in the government. Do you think that it is wack that we want to avoid a return to the widespread intentional disenfranchisement that was prevalent within living memory?

[elucidator]

Well, keep in mind, there are no restrictions on voting. No one is being “disenfranchised”, they are still allowed to vote, so legal and Constitutional. So you can stop saying “disenfranchised” every ten words or so, because you totally lost that one!

No voter is being treated unequally here, it is the dirt they stand on that is being reshaped and formed to a partisan purpose. This distinction is important, because states than have more dirt than people would not have equal power if this sacred principle were ignored.

Did I say “sacred”? Clearly, that should be “Sacred”, as befits an immortal and divine document, which must be worshipped uncritically. I propose we adopt the “Bricker protocol”, and we should genuflect when we type the word “Constitution”. After all, what other Power could render an injustice into something that must be protected and defended. We could think of this as the transubstantiation of equality, a cornerstone of American political theology.

[j666]

@Bricker

This is why I don’t debate “fair.”

I know what’s fair, and it ain’t that. Fair is EQUAL. Fair is treating every single person in a state identically; fair is placing no special benefits or special restrictions in any system based on race.

Fair is also adhering to agreements that were made. The small states adopted the Constitution because they were promised equal representation in the Senate to the large states, regardless of population. It would be UNFAIR to secure that agreement and then renege on the system without the new consent of the affected states.

But you see it differently. That’s fine. There is no objective measure to resolve the dispute.

So we stick the what’s legal. That, at least, has mechanisms to resolve disputes.

Or we could arm wrestle, winner gets to decide all issues of “fair.” Your call.

Some think that ‘fair’ means acknowledging historical context.

Some admit that laws are not applied equally to people of different races.

[elucidator]

And some Republicans have malign motives in all this. I do not toss that accusation about lightly, I have that on the very best authority,

[Huey_Freeman]

@octopus

White supremacy is so powerful that your anti white and racist rants barely raise on eyebrow. Why do you even try?

I don’t try, that’s the fucking point. First, why would any person of color after reading this forum try to engage with a ragtag team of white supremacists? Why would a person of color contribute to a forum where the first thread is “Is OJ guilty?”, “South Africa meltdown!!”, “Chicago violence is off the charts”, or “Controversial encounters with law enforcement” which reads like a pornographic list of black people killed by law enforcement. Me personally? I was over “trying” after one you animals smeared a person of color by posting their real-life picture on this forum; all the while, white liberals looked with on with concerned indifference. So that’s that. Despite all of this, there are no current threads on your opioid epidemic, no current threads on your culture that celebrates guns, no current self-reflective threads on how the the ills of the white community (of which, they are many), no current threads on the white kids shootings that occurred this past month, not even a thread on the white dude who killed his family and threw the corpses in crude oil. Nope. Instead, it’s all anti-black shit or anti-liberal shit (which has become a dog whistle for black/minorities anyway). So* that’s *why I don’t try.

Second, why do you try? Why do go from thread-to-thread demeaning people of color and wrapping yourself in the Tomi Lahren flag of conservatism? Did a person of color take your job or cut you off in traffic? Were you taught these behaviors as a child or were they learned in the Ivy League halls of Prager University? You might have conned these white folks into perpetually fighting your ignorance, but I’m just gawking at you.

Finally, to answer your question, I read (and post occasionally) because as someone who works in environment where I’m the only person of color, I find it educational (and fascinating) to see what white people really think under the cloak of anonymity. It’s also cool to see white fragility, such as your comment, happen in real-time on a message board.

[Huey_Freeman]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Agreed. My problem isn’t with identity politics. It’s with, again, crazypants identity politics.
I don’t know how you’re interpreting the Sunken Place. Looked to me like a place where a person’s agency was subsumed, and they were unable to make decisions about the world, because someone else (or if you’d like an alien institution) was making the decisions for them.

If that’s not what you mean, you metaphor differently from me. If that is what you mean, it’s a ridiculous thing to apply to a straight rich gender-conforming Christian man who benefits from every power axis in our society except for race.

Nope.

Kuchiyose No Jutsu

Take it from here, Urbandictionary.

@Urbandictionary

Sunken Place: When one is in a perpetual place of slumber, regarding systematic and idiosyncratic injustice and oppression in regards to race, i.e. the antithesis of being woke. Especially when a person of color can’t or refuses to see it.

[Slash1972]

@Huey_Freeman

no current threads on your culture that celebrates guns

hahahahahahaha!

This is funny. Keep at it Huey!

[Guinastasia]

I’m starting to suspect that Huey Freeman is actually a white Freeper-type troll.