What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

It is complicated isn't it?

Color blindness is indeed the goal but you cannot get there by being color blind.

It is annoying that a fake thing like race is one of the most important things in our society. Ah well I guess that, something not really real being the most vital thing, is pretty common in human societies.

[frunk]

I don't think your conclusions follow from the premise.

Suppose "the system" - a combination of government and private actors - create outcomes that are grossly racist in some areas. Suppose also, as you say, that there are elements of the system that mitigates or avoids grossly racist outcomes in other areas.

To me it seems a more reasonable conclusion is not to "fight the whole government" or "destroy the entire system" but to support and nourish the parts of the system that do not produce or even counters racist outcomes, while working to dismantle and replace the parts of the system that propagates grossly racist outcomes.

As part of that effort, it seems pretty legitimate to identify and challenge the individuals who work to support and propagate the elements of the system that propagates grossly racist outcomes. Whether they do so out of personal animus against people of other races, or whether they do it out of some other principle or self interest doesn't really signify - what matters is that they're supporting and growing the parts of the system that produces grossly racist outcomes.

I agree completely and it is entirely my point, it is useful to target problems not apply overly broad labels to things.  Don't you think it is infinitely more useful to argue over whether a specific policy or individual in government is racist or causing unjust outcomes than to argue over whether the government as a whole is racist?  I don't think it helps anything to apply the overall label, there's no information conveyed other than that there can be unjust outcomes out of government.  If you didn't already know that you haven't been paying attention.

[Malthus]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

I completely disagree.  Not being colorblind is explicitly racist.

No because supposed colorblindness is exactly what leads to the reinforcement of racism. Can't fix a problem you can't see.

Not seeing racism isn't what "colourblindness" means. It means not using race as a criterion for something.

[Jacob]

False dichotomy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Rarely have I seen a purer example.

It is absolutely possible to (a) accept that the status quo is not great; and (b) not accept that it is in and of itself "racist".

Fine. The alternative is to accept that the status quo is not racist. Which leads to the next part of the conversation...

It depends on what you mean by "the US".

I don't think that racism ever disappeared from US society, if that is what you are asking. It remains to this day in lots of places; I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

If it never disappeared I guess you could say that the status quo is racist, then.

Assuming you mean "the laws of the US", those laws themselves stopped being "racist" when they ceased to enshrine racism officially. This was a gradual process, triggered by a series of laws enacted in the mid-1960s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

I don't mean "US laws". I mean US society. Laws are certainly part of what makes up US society, but it is not the sole part.

A good measure of whether US society is racist is to significantly racial differences predict different outcomes. How likely, for example, are members of different groups to attain educational or financial success when starting from otherwise similar backgrounds? How likely are they to be shot by the police in otherwise similar circumstances? How do they fare in the justice system and in the media when accused of similar crimes? When interfacing with the body of laws and regulations that are on the surface not racist, do members of different racial groups who are otherwise similar nonetheless experience significantly different outcomes?

There is a legitimate argument to be made that certain laws are designed to have a disproportionate impact on Black communities (see: drug laws) and that these are "racist".

But on the whole, by any meaningful measure, while not perfect the laws of today are clearly "non racist" in that they do not expressly enshrine racism, while the laws pre-1960s are clearly "racist" because they did.

Seems to me that you just described the "US is white supremacist" as a legitimate argument which makes me wonder what you're objecting to.

But give Trump time; I'm sure he can undo the whole "lets make the laws colourblind" thing soon enough. 

No need (except for Muslims, as it's useful for him to have an "enemy within" group to explicitly target). You can achieve most of the necessary effect from the laws you say can be legitimately argued as being racist, even if they make no explicit reference to race.

The definition of white supremacy that triggered this line of argument refers to such laws (and other social structures with similar impact), and says that people who support such laws support white supremacy.

I get that it's an unpleasant term but I don't think it's inaccurate. Personally I'm perfectly open to alternative formulations given you seem to be in agreement about the underlying reality (see: drug laws).

[garbon]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

I completely disagree.  Not being colorblind is explicitly racist.

No because supposed colorblindness is exactly what leads to the reinforcement of racism. Can't fix a problem you can't see.

Not seeing racism isn't what "colourblindness" means. It means not using race as a criterion for something.

Like a criterion for what races have been disadvantaged?

Also what Valmy said.

[Malthus]

Fine. The alternative is to accept that the status quo is not racist. Which leads to the next part of the conversation...

...

If it never disappeared I guess you could say that the status quo is racist, then.

Lemme get this straight.

Is it your contention that if any amount of racism exists among folks who live in the US, then "the status quo is racist"?

If so, it appears unlikely that the US will ever cease to be "racist".

I don't mean "US laws". I mean US society. Laws are certainly part of what makes up US society, but it is not the sole part.

A good measure of whether US society is racist is to significantly racial differences predict different outcomes. How likely, for example, are members of different groups to attain educational or financial success when starting from otherwise similar backgrounds? How likely are they to be shot by the police in otherwise similar circumstances? How do they fare in the justice system and in the media when accused of similar crimes? When interfacing with the body of laws and regulations that are on the surface not racist, do members of different racial groups who are otherwise similar nonetheless experience significantly different outcomes?

This is circular reasoning, since you are assuming as your premise the very thing under dispute ("A good measure of whether US society is racist is to significantly racial differences predict different outcomes").

Seems to me that you just described the "US is white supremacist" as a legitimate argument which makes me wonder what you're objecting to.

Whut? This doesn't even make a lick of sense.

No need (except for Muslims, as it's useful for him to have an "enemy within" group to explicitly target). You can achieve most of the necessary effect from the laws you say can be legitimately argued as being racist, even if they make no explicit reference to race.

The definition of white supremacy that triggered this line of argument refers to such laws (and other social structures with similar impact), and says that people who support such laws support white supremacy.

I get that it's an unpleasant term but I don't think it's inaccurate. Personally I'm perfectly open to alternative formulations given you seem to be in agreement about the underlying reality (see: drug laws).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

To my mind, the specious reasoning and name-calling associated with the political left's use of "systemic racism" and similar claims has done a minor amount of harm - basically, acting as a distraction among liberal ranks. Even other liberals grow weary of being branded "white supremacists" for, say, supporting not using legal racial preferences, or whatever else is currently being proposed as a panacea to fix society. 

Compared to the harms done by the political right, it's like a match to a flamethrower, but still.

[Malthus]

Supposed color blindness is complicit in supporting racism.

I completely disagree.  Not being colorblind is explicitly racist.

No because supposed colorblindness is exactly what leads to the reinforcement of racism. Can't fix a problem you can't see.

Not seeing racism isn't what "colourblindness" means. It means not using race as a criterion for something.

Like a criterion for what races have been disadvantaged?

Also what Valmy said.

Um, no.

Like "we accept students to this program if they have an A average" vs. "we accept White students if they have an A+ average, Black students if they have a B+ average".

The one is colour blind; the other is not.

There are good reasons why someone would support the first over the second that have nothing to do with 'the supporter is a White Supremacist". Which is how this conversation started.

[The Minsky Moment]

Racism and white supremacy are related but not the same thing.  White supremacy is a belief system, which can be incorporated into a governing or social structure, that contends that persons of certain cultural background (typically "European" of subset thereof) are to given a privileged position.  Racism refers to any structure which systematically discriminates against persons of certain socio-cultural backgrounds.  All white supremacist systems are racist but a racist system is not necessarily white supremacist.

I don't think 2017 US can be broadly said to be white supremacist in this sense (even though there are individuals and groups with local power and authority that may hold such views).  Whether the US can be said to retain racist structures by virtue of its historical experience is a more debatable question.

[Oexmelin]

What kind of harm is the expression "systematic racism" causing?

It seems to me people who disagree with it actually have a political disagreement, notably, about the extent of racism in our societies.

If the fight against racism is a choice between ritualistic denunciations - but no attempt to reform anything than law because that would not be "colorblind" - or a call for profound institutional reform, then it's not causing harm. It's displaying a real disagreement.

[Jacob]

Lemme get this straight.

Is it your contention that if any amount of racism exists among folks who live in the US, then "the status quo is racist"?

If so, it appears unlikely that the US will ever cease to be "racist".

I'd post a link to the definition of a false dilemma, but I'm pretty sure you already have it.

This is circular reasoning, since you are assuming as your premise the very thing under dispute ("A good measure of whether US society is racist is to significantly racial differences predict different outcomes").

You're the one disputing it. I was merely trying to find out what your objection was to the term "white supremacy". It appears that it is not a matter of fact since we both agree that the US has laws that disproportionately target specific racial groups (and I think we also agree that there are other social structures that function similarly). That is by some - but not by you - defined as racist, and as part of a system of white supremacy.

My question then is if it is not "racist" and if it is not a system of "white supremacy" what term would you use to encapsulate that state of affairs?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I don't think we're disagreeing... I'm not advocating for the use of the term. The usage is relatively new, so I'm still figuring out what I think about it but I think I have a good grasp on what's meant. I was engaging with you to better understand your objection - which you've made relatively clear.

To my mind, the specious reasoning and name-calling associated with the political left's use of "systemic racism" and similar claims has done a min amount of harm - basically, acting as a distraction among liberal ranks. Even other liberals grow weary of being branded "white supremacists" for, say, supporting not using legal racial preferences, or whatever else is currently being proposed as a panacea to fix society.

Sure.

Is your proposal then that we do not engage with what is variously termed "systemic racism" and "white supremacy" at all? Is it not a topic that merits analysis and discussion? Or if it is, what is your preferred framework and vocabulary for engaging with the phenomenon?

Compared to the harms done by the political right, it's like a match to a flamethrower, but still.

It's certainly contentious because it demands that people who think of themselves as otherwise decent consider whether they are complicit to some degree. I certainly have my own limits on how much of that and what flavours I can deal with.

[The Minsky Moment]

Because everyone agrees that racism is "bad" and inexcusable, thus ceding the rhetorical ground risks losing the argument by default.
No one wants to be in the position of having to argue that a particular system is affected by racism and yet on policy grounds such not be reformed further.  Rhetorically it sounds better to argue that a system isn't really racist but is merely impacted in some way by past racism, and that the cure for remedying that impact is worse than the problem.

I think that gets to the best argument for the "not racist" position: it tends to shut down discussion by focusing energies on the rhetoric of categorization.  Pragmatically it may be better not to push the point in the hopes of building coalitions with those who might be ultimately convinced support useful interventions as long as they are not forced to accept the undesired categorization of the status quo.

[Oexmelin]

It's certainly contentious because it demands that people who think of themselves as otherwise decent consider whether they are complicit to some degree. I certainly have my own limits on how much of that and what flavours I can deal with.

Which is why I don't understand the objection. The use of "systematic" precisely suggests that it goes well beyond individual stances. It asks tough questions, but the moral injunction underneath it is a call for collective action, not to bear the weight of a whole system on one's shoulders.  I can be really committed to the environment, while still benefitting from a system that pollutes the air and wrecks natural landscapes: the fact that I recycle my trash will not change the whole system, even if it makes me feel good about myself.

[Oexmelin]

Pragmatically it may be better not to push the point in the hopes of building coalitions with those who might be ultimately convinced support useful interventions as long as they are not forced to accept the undesired categorization of the status quo.

I remain unconvinced, if only because there has to be a measure of "unmasking" to be done, which precisely relies on discussions of categorization. The activist's argument is that people who insist, from the get-go, in making the terms of the debate as inocuous as possible, are unlikely to support the types of change required, favoring instead cosmetic measures. And the pragmatic argument, however seducing it looks to people who claim to favor the middle ground, requires at least such contrast to exist.

[Liep]

This is amazing stuff

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

"I've asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period," he said. "They won't do it."

The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn't been invited. "Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac," Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: " 'Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.' "

Trump really upped his entertainment value by hiring the Mooch.

[FunkMonk]

This is amazing stuff

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

"I've asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period," he said. "They won't do it."

The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn't been invited. "Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac," Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: " 'Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.' "

Trump really upped his entertainment value by hiring the Mooch.

He refers to himself as "the Mooch" and he said Steve Bannon tries to suck his own cock.

To a reporter.

Off the record.



I don't know a damn thing about "the Mooch" but I know he belongs in this administration. 

I guess he's some New York hotshot hedge fund guy who made lots of TV appearances where he sucked Donnie off enough to get where he is now. Any other Languishites know more about this wannabe tough guy?