What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

It's pretty incontestable that the status quo is one where their is material and significant diversion in outcomes based on race: income, wealth, positions of power and authority, and so on. 
So the challenge of the no racism hypothesis is to explain how one reaches such outcomes in the absence of racism.

It's fairly incontrovertible there has been systemic racism in the west in the past.  Slavery, Jim Crow, Chinese head tax, you name it.

That being said, the question is: is the system currently systemically racist?  I would say no.

[Admiral Yi]

It's pretty incontestable that the status quo is one where their is material and significant diversion in outcomes based on race: income, wealth, positions of power and authority, and so on. 
So the challenge of the no racism hypothesis is to explain how one reaches such outcomes in the absence of racism.

Behavior, ability, culture, etc.  The challenge for the yes racism hypothesis is to explain how some minorities (such as Chinese and Japanese I think) do better than whites on average.

I am however coming around to the notion that federal housing discrimination has significantly disadvantaged blacks in wealth creation.

[Oexmelin]

If a system is only defined through law, then we have gotten rid of some (not all) of the more egregious examples of State-sanctioned discrimination. 

But if a system is also defined by outcomes which are independent of the will of each individual actors, then the current replication of racial inequalities, absent these regulations, needs to be addressed. Similarly, if suitable proxies are found that can fall disproportionately upon certain racial groups, without using the discredited language of racism, then we need to look further than explicitly racist laws or measures. Whether or not such proxies are used disingenuously, or cynically, may be up for debate, but if the outcomes enforce a racist order, I don't think it is wrong to call such "white supremacy".

[dps]

If a system is only defined through law, then we have gotten rid of some (not all) of the more egregious examples of State-sanctioned discrimination. 

But if a system is also defined by outcomes which are independent of the will of each individual actors, then the current replication of racial inequalities, absent these regulations, needs to be addressed. Similarly, if suitable proxies are found that can fall disproportionately upon certain racial groups, without using the discredited language of racism, then we need to look further than explicitly racist laws or measures. Whether or not such proxies are used disingenuously, or cynically, may be up for debate, but if the outcomes enforce a racist order, I don't think it is wrong to call such "white supremacy".

By your definition, does the fact that BB believes that "the system" is not currently racist make him a white supremacist?

[The Minsky Moment]

To BB: if the response is that it's the effect of past racism, then the next question is this: is a system that that tolerates unequal outcomes because of the consequences of past racism thereby complicit in that past racism, or is their an obligation to redress those past effects.

To Yi: that is a challenge, but one that requires a careful analysis of patterns of migration and selection, as well as changes in social mores and attitudes.

[jimmy olsen]

Hey I thought Trump was actually liberal on social issues and was super pro-LGBT. Huh.

This man is a racist. He's appalingly sexist. Above all he's a bully and pathalogical liar. Were you really suckered into thinking that because he waved a rainbow flag around once and said he supported them?

[jimmy olsen]

I think the plan is to avoid paying for unnecessary surgeries.

A new vagina is a thousandth of the cost of an F-35 and unlike the jet, still works when wet.

It's loose change compared to the overall Pentagon budget.

[Oexmelin]

I tend to be prudent with accusations of "white supremacists", and usually prefer the term "white supremacy". Casual racists and KKK supporters can empower white supremacy, without being on the same level of commitment to the idea. And if one takes the notion of system seriously, leftists and African-Americans can also be part of a system of white supremacy even as they, themselves, hate it, enable it, or even benefit from it. 

I think people who cynically make use of proxies to avoid the language of race are undoubtedly white supremacists. The whole language of "Welfare Queen" was undoubtedly such a proxy. The current re-segregation of US schools is also a symptom of similar process, where "success" is used.

I think people who are willing to lend their help to such people, because they believe that such measures will also benefit their preferred political
options, are at least heavily complicit in white supremacy. Voter suppression, for instance.

I think, similarly, people who have been readily convinced that their preferred political belief should oppose/mock "whiners" and "snowflakes" and "SJW" have recently become much more skeptical of the notion of systemic racism, which in turn often comforts a certain level of casual racism. Status quo, then, becomes a way to delegitimize a whole cause.

I have a higher opinion of BB than that.

That being said, it's been a widely commented sociological effect that people who are the object of discrimination tend to have a much better imagination of "the other side" than those who have never had to face such discrimination. (As an example, not related to race, young girls usually imagine much better their lives as boys than the reverse). I think discussing how a system may produce racist outcomes is an important discussion to have, and I fear it is getting brushed aside because those who carry such discussion tend to come from the "other side".

I think BB's commitment to conservatism leads him to subscribe by default, to the idea that the status quo is good, and that the current racial inequality he has witnessed in Canada can, and should, be explained by other factors. Some of it may be out of ideological repugnance, because anti-racism has historically been a case of the left.

[jimmy olsen]

If you believe White people are naturally superior to other people.

Ah I see... I think another popular definition is "if you think society should be structured to primarily benefit white people".

Wouldn't a White Supremacist have to, by definition, believe that White people are better than non-White people, and therefore ought to dominate over them?

The definition you have provided, seems to  me, goes for any ethnic or tribal chauvinist, even if they believed people in their particular ethnicity or tribe weren't "superior" to others.   

Does it really matter if you want your race/ethnic group to dominate/enslave/annihilate another race/ethnic group because you think your group is naturally superior, or if you're just selfish and want your group to be on top?

[jimmy olsen]

Pentagon's health care budget

[dps]

If you believe White people are naturally superior to other people.

Ah I see... I think another popular definition is "if you think society should be structured to primarily benefit white people".

Wouldn't a White Supremacist have to, by definition, believe that White people are better than non-White people, and therefore ought to dominate over them?

The definition you have provided, seems to  me, goes for any ethnic or tribal chauvinist, even if they believed people in their particular ethnicity or tribe weren't "superior" to others.   

Does it really matter if you want your race/ethnic group to dominate/enslave/annihilate another race/ethnic group because you think your group is naturally superior, or if you're just selfish and want your group to be on top?

I think it probably does make a difference.  If you're just selfish, you want to be on top, but you wouldn't inherently have any vested interest in keeping any group in particular down.  You might, or might not, want to keep "your" group on top, depending on how much you identified as a member of a group--an extremely selfish person, for example, might not identify as a member of any group at all, and at less extreme levels, the group that a person identifies with might be based on factors other than race.

[jimmy olsen]

...I see where you are coming from, but I'm not convinced. I will think on the matter some more.

Oh, by the way, this was the 69th anniversary of Truman desegregating the military.

[Admiral Yi]

The relative amount of spending is irrelevant if you think the taxpayer shouldn't be in the business of buying people tits and dicks to begin with.

[jimmy olsen]

The relative amount of spending is irrelevant if you think the taxpayer shouldn't be in the business of buying people tits and dicks to begin with.

I don't see the GOP railing against the $84 million that the Pentagon spends on erectile disfunction medication.

https://twitter.com/jaredbkeller/status/890213863999885312

[Grey Fox]

Fuck Healthcare is expensive. Does that 43 billion figure include reserve personnel or just the 1.3 million active members?