What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Malthus]

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.

One word: history.

Elaboration: in a country where one race was literally enslaved by another, and in which systemic and severe racial discrimination extended for a century after actual slavery ended, one would reasonably expect cultural, personal and institutional inertia to create significant disparity in outcomes based on race, even assuming for the purposes of argument that all vestiges of racism miraculously disappeared from society decades ago.

Therefore, it is not a valid argument to assume that such disparities that visibly exist today are caused by racism that exists today. Even assuming, again purely for the sake of argument, that the "playing field" is completely level as between a White and a Black person assuming all things are equal, all things will not be equal as between the average Black and White person; the average White person has the advantage, on average - in family history, in culture, in wealth. 

This does not make those who uphold the status quo racist. Once again assuming that they believe, for the sake of argument, that the playing field is more or less level, they may well believe that the virtue of maintaining a level playing field for everyone regardless of race outweighs the drawback that one group (Whites) has, because of historical reasons, better outcomes under a truly level playing field than another (Blacks).

[Malthus]

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?

Of course it matters.

If you truly believe in the superiority of one race over another, domination by your chosen race is a positive duty. Compromise with the "lesser races" is impossible - there can be only one "supreme" race, right? 

If all you want is the greatest benefit for your particular tribe, there is far more room for negotiations, trade-offs, and rational self-interest: knowing that the members of your tribe aren't magically superior to others, your selfishness is more likely to take a rational direction.

Supremacists can't really be bargained with, only opposed.

It's why folks so misjudged (say) the Nazis. People thought they merely wanted the greatest benefit for their tribe (ethnic Germans). Therefore, that they could be "rationally appeased". However, they were truly supremacists. They could not be rationally appeased because their ultimate goals were not merely to grab as much as possible for their tribe, but to eliminate or subdue all other tribes. 

[derspiess]

They're willing to pay the medical costs for the healthy expression of one specific gender identify, so it's clearly not a financial objection, just bigotry.

It's not a "healthy expression", it's a medically unnecessary surgery.  If someone wants to mutilate themselves, they ought to be able to do it, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

[jimmy olsen]

Jesus Christ...the Department of Energy is a wasteland. We could definitely have a few Chernobyls in the next couple of years.

Way to long to post unfortunately. Just read it. It's nightmarish.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis

[Grey Fox]

Make a thread Tim, ffs.

[jimmy olsen]

Make a thread Tim, ffs.

It's too long to post in one piece.

[Malthus]

They're willing to pay the medical costs for the healthy expression of one specific gender identify, so it's clearly not a financial objection, just bigotry.

It's not a "healthy expression", it's a medically unnecessary surgery.  If someone wants to mutilate themselves, they ought to be able to do it, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

The issue is a simple one: the range of available medical benefits ought to be an issue between the army administrators and the physicians treating particular individuals, just like any other such decision. Having the President or Congress micro-manage it for political reasons makes no sense. It doesn't matter whether any of us thinks the procedure is "unnecessary" or not - we are not physicians.

For the same reason it makes no sense to rail at army service members getting access to Viagra. Who are we to dictate whether that is "necessary" or not?   

[Grey Fox]

Make a thread Tim, ffs.

It's too long to post in one piece.

That's fine, I'm just saying don't add it to the megathread. I agree with you, megathreads are bad for the forum.

[Grey Fox]

They're willing to pay the medical costs for the healthy expression of one specific gender identify, so it's clearly not a financial objection, just bigotry.

It's not a "healthy expression", it's a medically unnecessary surgery.  If someone wants to mutilate themselves, they ought to be able to do it, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

You shouldn't see military expenditure has tax payer money. It's bad for the long run. "They don't need uniforms, it's all just drones remote flying anyway"

[The Minsky Moment]

One word: history.

Then you have to answer the second question.

This does not make those who uphold the status quo racist. Once again assuming that they believe, for the sake of argument, that the playing field is more or less level, they may well believe that the virtue of maintaining a level playing field for everyone regardless of race outweighs the drawback that one group (Whites) has, because of historical reasons, better outcomes under a truly level playing field than another (Blacks).

But on this hypothetical the effect is to cement in place disparate outcomes that are the product of racism (albeit past racism).  That makes such a system indistinguishable in terms of tangible outcomes from one that is systemically racist.

[garbon]

They're willing to pay the medical costs for the healthy expression of one specific gender identify, so it's clearly not a financial objection, just bigotry.

It's not a "healthy expression", it's a medically unnecessary surgery.  If someone wants to mutilate themselves, they ought to be able to do it, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

The issue is a simple one: the range of available medical benefits ought to be an issue between the army administrators and the physicians treating particular individuals, just like any other such decision. Having the President or Congress micro-manage it for political reasons makes no sense. It doesn't matter whether any of us thinks the procedure is "unnecessary" or not - we are not physicians.

For the same reason it makes no sense to rail at army service members getting access to Viagra. Who are we to dictate whether that is "necessary" or not?   

Agreed. After all, despite what derspiess thinks, it has definitely been demonstrated that gender reassignment surgery can have therapeutic benefits on a person's well-being. And easy enough to see on same basis with erectile dysfunction.

[The Minsky Moment]

They're willing to pay the medical costs for the healthy expression of one specific gender identify, so it's clearly not a financial objection, just bigotry.

It's not a "healthy expression", it's a medically unnecessary surgery.  If someone wants to mutilate themselves, they ought to be able to do it, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

The issue is a simple one: the range of available medical benefits ought to be an issue between the army administrators and the physicians treating particular individuals, just like any other such decision. Having the President or Congress micro-manage it for political reasons makes no sense. It doesn't matter whether any of us thinks the procedure is "unnecessary" or not - we are not physicians.

For the same reason it makes no sense to rail at army service members getting access to Viagra. Who are we to dictate whether that is "necessary" or not?

As pointed out earlier in the thread this whole argument is a diversion.
The policy change has exactly zero to do with the cost of health care provision or what is medically necessary or military readiness or anything having to do with anything of substance.
It's just a cynical ploy to throw some red meat at a core base that is beginning to waiver a bit in the face of the massive incompetence of this sad excuse of an administration, and to invoke a pavlovian response from a news media focusing too uncomfortably on the ugly Russia story.

[Valmy]

I do love how everybody made all these assumptions that Trump's announcement was actually based on meeting with his generals and was actually thought out as opposed to just a fuckup where he misunderstood Paul Ryan with regards to a political ploy to get a budget passed.

Ah well.

[Malthus]

Then you have to answer the second question.

Not sure what this refers to.

But on this hypothetical the effect is to cement in place disparate outcomes that are the product of racism (albeit past racism).  That makes such a system indistinguishable in terms of tangible outcomes from one that is systemically racist.

Outcomes is not the same as motives.

To make an analogy: killing someone only becomes murder if the guilty mind is present.

An accusation of racism is an accusation of a present guilty mind: that some policy or action is motivated by racist animus.

Claiming that a policy would be indistinguishable in outcomes from one motivated by racism is a claim that may be true but is irrelevant: if I shoot a person in a clear case of self defense, the outcome may be the same as if I murdered them for gain (they are just as dead), but the one action is justifiable while the other is not. 

A policy that has outcomes indistinguishable from racism may (or may not! of course the point is debatable) be justified by other things - for example, the philosophy that the only true way to end racism is to enact a strict level playing field regardless of past historical wrongs, while enacting policies of racial preference to redress past historical wrongs risks perpetuating racism.

[Malthus]

They're willing to pay the medical costs for the healthy expression of one specific gender identify, so it's clearly not a financial objection, just bigotry.

It's not a "healthy expression", it's a medically unnecessary surgery.  If someone wants to mutilate themselves, they ought to be able to do it, but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

The issue is a simple one: the range of available medical benefits ought to be an issue between the army administrators and the physicians treating particular individuals, just like any other such decision. Having the President or Congress micro-manage it for political reasons makes no sense. It doesn't matter whether any of us thinks the procedure is "unnecessary" or not - we are not physicians.

For the same reason it makes no sense to rail at army service members getting access to Viagra. Who are we to dictate whether that is "necessary" or not?

As pointed out earlier in the thread this whole argument is a diversion.
The policy change has exactly zero to do with the cost of health care provision or what is medically necessary or military readiness or anything having to do with anything of substance.
It's just a cynical ploy to throw some red meat at a core base that is beginning to waiver a bit in the face of the massive incompetence of this sad excuse of an administration, and to invoke a pavlovian response from a news media focusing too uncomfortably on the ugly Russia story.

Agreed.

Though there is still merit in refuting the alleged substance, at least here.