Gdanning
2yr ago
Why stop zooming in at the country level?
Because, as I understood it, the question was about attitudes at the country level.
Gdanning
2yr ago
The modal racist hates, for example:
Being raised in a country founded or dominated by a race other than their own Experiencing discrimination as a child because of their race Repeated negative exposures to particular behaviors exhibited by subgroups of a race
This is an explanation of why racists hate members of certain groups. But, do you have empirical evidence for this claim? It certainly does not seem to explain the existence of racists in the past, and of course it ignores the extent to which outgroup antipathy is normal, and of course it ignores the role of socialization.
Gdanning
2yr ago
It was top-down and very coercive efforts by the federal and state governments which forced America to racially integrate
I don't know about this. As the old saying goes, the Supreme Court follows the polls. This Gallup poll from 1957 found 66-33 support for school desegregation. Support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 59-31 (ie, 65% of those expressing an opinion), and 61-28 among Whites in the North. And, of course, by 1948 both major political parties had planks in their platforms calling for federal anti-segregation legislation. That would not have happened if it did not enjoy the support of voters; appealing to voters is the whole point of a platform.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust.
Not in the United States. In the United States, it has historically been "racists" who were the perpetrators of various sorts of legal and extralegal repression. Of course, that is because Marxists have never been in power in the US, but that is the nature of historical contingency, and the current relative social acceptance of the two is a historically contingent fact.
California has a state law against firing people for their political beliefs, but it didn't protect James Damore,
It is actually an open question whether CA law applied to Damore. The CA Labor Code does not refer explicitly to political beliefs, but rather to political activiities and actions
- No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. (Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)
- No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
The law has been interpreted broadly, but I don't know that it has been applied to criticisms of internal company policy. Note that, in the analogous case of the free speech rights of public employee, the Supreme Court has held that criticism of internal policy is not protected speech. Of course, the federal jurisprudence on public employee free speech is terrible, so it would not surprise me if CA courts go in a different direction.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Interestingly, when the Genocide Convention was first proposed, it included political groups, but the USSR refused to go along with that definition, for obvious reasons. And we do refer to the "Cambodian Genocide," most of the victims of which were targeted for their political group membership. And then there was Indonesia in 1965, in which hundreds of thousands of Communist party members were killed. Most genocide scholars consider that a genocide, but of course they are not bound by the UN definition.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I'm not sure I see how, given that the 14th Amendment only limits state actors, while the CRA applies to private actors.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I asked you what Thomas's theory was, not for your personal opinion. Given that the Supreme Court unanimously held that that the CRA is indeed constitutional, you can perhaps understand why the opinion of a layman that asserts otherwise, without addressing the rationale of the Supreme Court's determination, is of limited value.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Clarence Thomas has already thought often of striking the CRA entirely using originalism.
Can you elaborate on his theory? Because the most common argument I hear is based on freedom of association, which is not really an originalist argument.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Not to mention that because of different age distributions, most retirees each year are non-Hispanic whites. The WaPo article also says that 90% of people who entered the workforce in the last year were non-Hispanic whites. So that 94% claim sure seems to be "figures don’t lie, but liars figure."
Gdanning
2yr ago
Gdanning
2yr ago
And if she hasn't previously declared herself a candidate in the 2024 election for the seat, she probably would have been. But surely you can understand why Newsom stated that he would not name anyone who is a declared candidate.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Does this mean she's not as favoured as thought
She is not favored at all, neither by the polls nor by fundraising.
Gdanning
2yr ago
have at least pretended that the Latinx community had a legitimate claim to the role, an
The last time Newsom appointed a Senator, to a de facto permanent seat, no less, rather thana de facto 15 month gig, he appointed Alex Padilla, a Latino.
Gdanning
2yr ago
someone's residence does actually inform us about who they represent.
This is a claim that residence is a relevant consideration. No one doubts that. The problem, as illustrated by the Jerry Brown example, is with your claim that current residence is per se disqualifying.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I am skeptical that the Seventeenth Amendment permits the appointment of someone who is ineligible to serve. However, whether she is eligible depends on what "inhabitant" means. Because there is a very important legal distinction between one's residence and his domicile. Whether "inhabitant" refers to "residence," "domicile" or something else is anybody's guess, but I am very skeptical that this issue has escaped the attention of the Governor, and it is very likely that all that matters is where she lives at the time that she is sworn in.
PS: See this Congressional Research Service report which seems to conclude that the only requirement is that the person be an inhabitant at the time that he or she is sworn in.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Dude, that is a completely different issue than the one you raised. If Jerry Brown moved to Delaware, he might be constitutionally ineligible to serve as Senator from California, regardless of whether he is capable of representing the interests of Californians. Your claim was re the latter.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Well, that seems a bit extreme, given my Jerry Brown example.
I reject the idea that someone can be Schrödinger's representative, equally legitimate in all places that they could register in once appointed.
That is a strawman that you have created. No one has argued otherwise.
Gdanning
2yr ago
She doesn't live in California
So, if Jerry Brown had moved to Maryland two years ago to head Emily's List, he would be an illegitimate pick as well? Clearly, "moved to Maryland for a job two years ago" is not per se proof that you can't be a legitimate representative of California.
Gdanning
2yr ago
The Democrat party apparatus does not care in the slightest whether this person represents California
An odd argument re someone who moved to California at age 30, was a labor leader in the state, was a regent of the University of California, worked for Kamala Harris, and moved out of state 2 years ago only to pursue a job opportunity
"Corruptly" also requires something more than an intentional or knowing act. Eg, the Fifth Circuit's pattern jury instructions say that the general rule is that "An act is “corruptly” done if it is done intentionally with an unlawful purpose." Re obstruction of judicial administration, it means "the defendant acted knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the due administration of justice."
Gdanning
2yr ago
It wouldn’t be so blatant if they didn’t pre-announce the race and sex of their appointees. Even just the plausible deniability of not doing that would improve the optics.
Why would one need plausible deniability for doing something that you think is sound policy?
Immediately narrowing the universe of candidates based on race and sex is definitionally racist and sexist.
No, it is definitionally discriminatory. That is not the same as racist/sexist. And sometimes both racial and gender discrimination are fine. There are lots of boys-only and girls-only schools out there, after all.
The “political legitimacy” of the racial spoils system of South Africa surely provides much comfort to its citizens.
Political legitimacy does not guarantee good policy, and it seems to me that South Africa has greater threats to the political legitimacy of its government than its "racial spoils system." And Taiwan, Belgium, New Zealand, Singapore and Croatia seem to be doing fine, despite having ethnic quotas in their legislatures. I note that South Africa does not seem to have such quotas. Perhaps it would be doing better if it did?
Gdanning
2yr ago
This is what your interlocutors are summing up as "racism is good, actually"
If that is the case, then my interlocutors need a more sophisticated understanding of what constitutes racism (rather than employing a definition that they almost certainly reject when used by their outgroup) as well as, more importantly, the issues surrounding representative democracy, including the very basic question of what makes it, and laws in general, legitimate. Do you know why the 26th Amendment passed when it did? Because drafting 18-20 yr olds to fight in an unpopular war when they had no right to vote for the legislators who were funding the war. And there is a reason that politicians from Bill Clinton to Nelson Rockefeller worked hard to get African American support for anti-crime laws. Because the perceived legitimacy of laws is important.
It is in direct contravention of the 90s colourblind ideal.
This is not correct. There were many intentionally "majority-minority" districts drawn at the time, particularly in the South. The South in the 90s, of course, was hardly a bastion of progressivism.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I think class and occupation are much more relevant.
That is very possibly true. Some people have argued that apportionment should be more on those grounds and less on geography. That might be a great idea. However:
- "X is more relevant than Y" is not an argument that X is irrelevant.
- This seems to be a statement that some white people (eg a white auto worker) might know the will of working class African Americans better than some African American people (eg, an African American lawyer). Even if that is true, my statement was mere that an African American representative is more likely
- Just to be clear, you are endorsing the idea that representation of interest groups is indeed legitimate.
People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done more to harm black people in the US than all the KKK members combined.
- I am not sure why you are lumping Jesse Jackson with Al Sharpton, nor what that harm you imagine that to be, nor why you are choosing two guys who have never held political office. A better example would be the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill, which some would argue has done more harm than good to the African American community. I am sure there are other bills that have not turned out well. Which leads me to ..
- I said that an African American is more likely to represent the will of African Americans. Not that every action by every African American politician is always going to turn out for the best. As Supreme Court justices have noted many times, ""The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws." The majority of African Americans apparently supported the 1994 crime bill, according to sources cited here. And, where is your evidence that African Americans did not approve of what Jesse Jackson or even Al Sharpton did?
Black people are not a monolith
- Yes, obviously. If legitimate democratic representation required that those who are represented be a monolith, then all representative bodies would be illegitimate.
- More importantly, this is an argument in favor of Newsom's position: If no group is a monolith, including the People of the State of California, then it is even more important that representatives come from as diverse a background as possible, is it not?
It seems to me that you would probably agree that "Someone who is White is more likely to know the will of White Americans than someone who isn't" is kind of a meaningless statement. To the extent that it's true, it's trivial.
I don't know why it is either meaningless or trivial. It is not meaningless or trivial in Hawaii (21 percent non-Hispanic white) or in the by-far largest county in the country (25 percent non-Hispanic white)
But has it? Here is the St. Louis Fed's real residential property index, which was at 60 in 1971 and about 160 today. In contrast, this calculator claims that $60 invested in the SP500 would be worth $1,540 today after
taxesinflation.Which is not to say that owning housing is not a good investment; if you live in it, you save on rent, and if you don’t, you collect rent. But most of your returns are going to be from something other than the appreciation of the property.
More options
Context Copy link