2020 US Election (Part One)

[Berzerker]

But for most of humanity's existence, "the other" describes the next tribe over. It wasn't articulated in terms we comprehend as differences of "race". And when people did begin to draw larger, more abstract distinctions, it was in terms of civilisation and barbarian, or believer and infidel, terms which do not clearly lend themselves to a racial framework, and in the latter case tends to run directly against it. It took until the sixteenth century, at the earliest, for this allegedly-innate behaviour to manifest itself, and even then only in certain parts of Europe. So even if you might make the argument that hostility to out-groups is innate, it is still necessary to explain racism as such: to explain why the in-group/out-group distinctions have been drawn in these particular ways, and why they have proven so pervasive and so enduring.

"Race" has always been with us, even when we were altogether ~200-300kya the neighboring tribes were various hominids and when we expanded out of Africa the new neighboring tribes were the descendants of those peoples, not us. Civilized, barbarian, believer, infidel, these just show how important distinctions are to us. We evolved to make distinctions because existence was dangerous.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't really think an analogy that draws from prehistory filled with different species is particularly relevant imo.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Race" has always been with us, even when we were altogether ~200-300kya the neighboring tribes were various hominids and when we expanded out of Africa the new neighboring tribes were the descendants of those peoples, not us. Civilized, barbarian, believer, infidel, these just show how important distinctions are to us. We evolved to make distinctions because existence was dangerous.

That isn't how "race" is understood in contemporary discourse, though. You can't pretend words means something other than their accepted meaning because it suits your argument.

 

[onejayhawk]

That isn't how "race" is understood in contemporary discourse, though. You can't pretend words means something other than their accepted meaning because it suits your argument.

Welcome to the forum. Such pretense is standard procedure here. If you find any workarounds, let me know.

In the broader scheme of things, race has replaced tribe in the us-vs-them discourse. Other than that, it's a cheap way to impugn your opponent when you have no valid response.

J

 

[metalhead]

On the other hand, usually people call you racist because that is actually what you are. But I could see how it's comforting to believe there might be another explanation.

 

[onejayhawk]

On the other hand, usually people call you racist because that is actually what you are. But I could see how it's comforting to believe there might be another explanation.

Rarely, in my experience. Usually, it is just a convenient pejorative.

If people actually meant what they said, they would be much more careful. It greatly detracts from the impact on the few occasions it is true. Take, for example, President Trump. Many people have called him racist without good reason, or any apparent reason at all. It's just a way of saying I don't like you. Decent people do not do that lightly or often. In contrast, some really hate filled, intolerant people throw the term around like candy at a kiddee party.

J

 

[cardgame]

Rarely, in my experience. Usually, it is just a convenient pejorative.

If people actually meant what they said, they would be much more careful. It greatly detracts from the impact on the few occasions it is true. Take, for example, President Trump. Many people have called him racist without good reason, or any apparent reason at all. It's just a way of saying I don't like you. Decent people do not do that lightly or often. In contrast, some really hate filled, intolerant people throw the term around like candy at a kiddee party.

J

If you pre-determine Trump as a Good Person™ then nothing pejorative can be said about him for any apparent reason at all.

 

[metalhead]

It's always fun, to get to the absurdity where repeatedly discriminating against Black people who apply for housing in your buildings doesn't mean you're racist. In fact isn't even a reason, let alone a good one, for calling Trump racist. Ditto saying that he believes laziness is a trait of Black people. Trump says textbook racist things, takes textbook racist actions, and yet he's not a racist and there is no reason to say he is? I mean, really?

These discussions are always illuminating, because often times people define what is "racist" as what is more racist than themselves. Which makes you wonder how racist a person is if they don't consider committing racial housing discrimination or holding negative race-based prejudice to be something that tends to prove a person is racist.

 

[Berzerker]

I don't really think an analogy that draws from prehistory filled with different species is particularly relevant imo.

Why can we call them species but not races? The first anatomically modern humans were born into a world surrounded by greater racial diversity than what we have now and we wiped them out. Racism aint new.

That isn't how "race" is understood in contemporary discourse, though. You can't pretend words means something other than their accepted meaning because it suits your argument.

But for most of humanity's existence, "the other" describes the next tribe over. It wasn't articulated in terms we comprehend as differences of "race". And when people did begin to draw larger, more abstract distinctions, it was in terms of civilisation and barbarian, or believer and infidel, terms which do not clearly lend themselves to a racial framework, and in the latter case tends to run directly against it. It took until the sixteenth century, at the earliest, for this allegedly-innate behaviour to manifest itself, and even then only in certain parts of Europe. So even if you might make the argument that hostility to out-groups is innate, it is still necessary to explain racism as such: to explain why the in-group/out-group distinctions have been drawn in these particular ways, and why they have proven so pervasive and so enduring.

When did the Asian race come into existence? Looks to me like you're defining race to suit your argument and ignoring the fact its just a way to group people, like ethnicity, tribe or clan. People have been doing that from day 1. Are you saying racism didn't exist before the 16th century? The reason race is more pervasive is population growth, with small populations clans and tribes are the norm. When you get 5 million people in a multicultural city clans and tribes give way to ethnicity and race. If you see an Asian man you may not know what clan or tribe he is, but you will know he's Asian.

 

[brennan]

Culture is not inherent, it is learned as well. Leave children of mixed races together in a typical kindergarten environment and they have no problems making friends with each other.

Well, duh, if they are playing with them at a young age they can't very well become 'the other' can they? But some other group will always be there to be the Xenos (PURGE THEM IN THE NAME OF THE EMPEROR!)

But for most of humanity's existence, "the other" describes the next tribe over. It wasn't articulated in terms we comprehend as differences of "race"

Really? Herodotus tells us that the Greeks thought XYZ about the Persians, the Medians, The Nubians etc. Persians for example were said to have thin skulls because of the headwear they traditionally wore. He says the Ethiopians were the most beautiful people in the world. Out-group stereotyping (and hostility) is not a remotely modern phenomenon, people just tend to have bigger 'in-groups' than before - and long may the trend continue.

even if you might make the argument that hostility to out-groups is innate, it is still necessary to explain racism as such: to explain why the in-group/out-group distinctions have been drawn in these particular ways

What could be a more simple out-group than 'those people over there who don't quite look like us'? No explanation needed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's always fun, to get to the absurdity where repeatedly discriminating against Black people who apply for housing in your buildings doesn't mean you're racist. In fact isn't even a reason, let alone a good one, for calling Trump racist. Ditto saying that he believes laziness is a trait of Black people. Trump says textbook racist things, takes textbook racist actions, and yet he's not a racist and there is no reason to say he is? I mean, really?

These discussions are always illuminating, because often times people define what is "racist" as what is more racist than themselves. Which makes you wonder how racist a person is if they don't consider committing racial housing discrimination or holding negative race-based prejudice to be something that tends to prove a person is racist.

I agree that there is a strong tendency for folks to attempt define "racist" in strictly "not-me!" terms. The thought process goes "Well I agree with X, and I'm not 'a racist', so therefore, X can't possibly be racist." What these folks outright refuse to consider, and in fact possibly can't consider for sake of ego/self-image... is that most racists are completely oblivious to the fact that they're racist... and most people who harbour racially prejudiced views/ideologies/principles don't realize that their views are in-fact, racially prejudiced.

For many of these folks, a person can only be "racist" if that person self-identifies as such. To them, a person basically has to be a regalia-wearing, card-carrying member of the Klan in order to be properly called "a racist". They also intentionally conflate a person being accused of individual racist/racially prejudiced acts or statements, with the person being called "a racist" and insist that before the former can be alleged, the latter must be established conclusively to their subjective satisfaction, which is nigh impossible based on the standards mentioned above.

So you will always end up in this kind of discussion with folks who subscribe to the "a person/sentiment/ideology I personally agree with can't possibly be racist" or "a person isn't racist unless they consider themselves racist" lines of thinking. I've also observed this line of "nobody is racist unless they self-identify as racist" thinking to be a pattern particularly with Conservatives, etc., which makes sense, for obvious reasons.

 

[El_Machinae]

I still hold Trump's tweeting of racist homicide statistics as evidence that he is racist.

I'm not using the term colloquially, I mean it.

That homicide tweet was obviously incorrect, and it would have lept out as false if other place holders had been used other than race. But, because units were expressed in race, Trump did not realize that they were false

And so, he retweeted it. And he did so in order to appeal to a base. A fraction of his base found the Tweet useful. Another fraction of his base wasn't bothered by the fact that it was so inflammatory

 

[Kyriakos]

Brother will kill brother, spill blood across the land

 

[onejayhawk]

I agree that there is a strong tendency for folks to attempt define "racist" in strictly "no-me!" terms. The thought process goes "Well I agree with X, and I'm not 'a racist', so therefore, X can't possibly be racist." What these folks outright refuse to consider, and in fact possibly can't consider for sake of ego/self-image... is that most racists are completely oblivious to the fact that they're racist... and most people who harbour racially prejudiced views/ideologies/principles don't realize that their views are in-fact, racially prejudiced.

For many of these folks, a person can only be "racist" if that person self-identifies as such. To them, a person basically has to be a regalia-wearing, card-carrying member of the Klan in order to be properly called "a racist". They also intentionally conflate a person being accused of individual racist/racially prejudiced acts or statements, with the person being called "a racist" and insist that before the former can be alleged, the latter must be established conclusively to their subjective satisfaction, which is nigh impossible based on the standards mentioned above.

So you will always end up in this kind of discussion with folks who subscribe to the "a person/sentiment/ideology I personally agree with can't possibly be racist" or "a person isn't racist unless they consider themselves racist" lines of thinking. I've also observed this line of "nobody is racist unless they self-identify as racist" thinking to be a pattern particularly with Conservatives, etc., which makes sense, for obvious reasons.

That describes the bulk of the commenters of this thread to a T. The Democratic party as well.

The mirror of that is that anyone that disagrees with me must be racist. This accounts for the bulk of accusations of racism. It's a serious issue that is treated cavalierly.

J

 

[metalhead]

That describes the bulk of the commenters of this thread to a T. The Democratic party as well.

The mirror of that is that anyone that disagrees with me must be racist. This accounts for the bulk of accusations of racism. It's a serious issue that is treated cavalierly.

J

Well if this isn't the own goal to end all own goals

 

[Lexicus]

I agree that there is a strong tendency for folks to attempt define "racist" in strictly "no-me!" terms. The thought process goes "Well I agree with X, and I'm not 'a racist', so therefore, X can't possibly be racist." What these folks outright refuse to consider, and in fact possibly can't consider for sake of ego/self-image... is that most racists are completely oblivious to the fact that they're racist... and most people who harbour racially prejudiced views/ideologies/principles don't realize that their views are in-fact, racially prejudiced.

For many of these folks, a person can only be "racist" if that person self-identifies as such. To them, a person basically has to be a regalia-wearing, card-carrying member of the Klan in order to be properly called "a racist". They also intentionally conflate a person being accused of individual racist/racially prejudiced acts or statements, with the person being called "a racist" and insist that before the former can be alleged, the latter must be established conclusively to their subjective satisfaction, which is nigh impossible based on the standards mentioned above.

So you will always end up in this kind of discussion with folks who subscribe to the "a person/sentiment/ideology I personally agree with can't possibly be racist" or "a person isn't racist unless they consider themselves racist" lines of thinking. I've also observed this line of "nobody is racist unless they self-identify as racist" thinking to be a pattern particularly with Conservatives, etc., which makes sense, for obvious reasons.

It's the psychologization of racism that's partially to blame here. Racism is intrinsic to the structure of liberal society, but the demands of Cold War anticommunism meant, more or less, sweeping this under the rug and pretending racism was a problem of 'attitudes,' ie, an individualized problem that could be solved by 'education' or 'awareness'.

This isn't of course to deny that bigotry exists at the individual level, but solving the problems racism has created for our society is a rather larger task than changing individual attitudes.

 

[metalhead]

Well, part of what makes Trump's racism so noxious is that it was directly applied in an arena where racism has historically been used to hold back people of color - the denial of housing.

It's one thing to have prejudices based on race. I'd wager few people are 100% free of any such prejudice. What matters is how one reacts to realizing their own prejudice. You can take the stupid route and try to claim that people are only pointing out prejudice as a political game, and are therefore the real racists. Or one can actually examine one's behavior and work on overcoming their prejudices.

 

[onejayhawk]

Well if this isn't the own goal to end all own goals

To end intolerance without being intolerant probably is the unreachable star. Just getting everyone to stop pointing fingers would be a big step in the right direction. The current practice of being intolerant of intolerance is cyclical and self-defeating.

It's the psychologization of racism that's partially to blame here. Racism is intrinsic to the structure of liberal society, but the demands of Cold War anticommunism meant, more or less, sweeping this under the rug and pretending racism was a problem of 'attitudes,' ie, an individualized problem that could be solved by 'education' or 'awareness'.

This isn't of course to deny that bigotry exists at the individual level, but solving the problems racism has created for our society is a rather larger task than changing individual attitudes.

This makes me wonder why the Democrats have embraced the tactics of Senator McCarthy. One would think they would find them abhorrent. Then again, that was back when Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. The party has changed.

J

 

[Kaitzilla]

You could have gotten many more to agree with you had you made that tax cut revenue neutral. Instead we've indebted our children and grandchildren so apple could launch a huge stock buyback.
Also this race to the bottom globally on business taxation is a foolhardy enterprise driven by the bad parts of globalism. Its reinforcing negative stewardship in our societies and as long as that continues the disparity in first world countries will worsen. Eventually that gap will lead to unrest. This policy itself is nearsighted.

Looks like you are right.
All those tax cuts went straight to stock buybacks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ry-splurges-on-buybacks-not-jobs?srnd=premium

Some of the largest U.S. technology companies pushed for a corporate tax overhaul in 2017 by suggesting they would go on hiring sprees and boost the economy. Just over a year after getting what they wanted, data show these firms gave most of their huge tax savings to investors.

The top 10 U.S. tech companies spent more than $169 billion purchasing their shares in 2018, a 55 percent jump from the year before the tax changes, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The industry as a whole authorized the greatest number of share buybacks ever recorded, totaling $387 billion, according to TrimTabs Investment Research. That’s more than triple the amount in 2017.

Spending on research and development climbed slightly. Capital expenditures rose because Alphabet Inc. and Facebook Inc. almost doubled spending in that category. Apple Inc. and its partners have yet to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., as President Donald Trump had hoped. And there was no surge in tech hiring, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Maybe we should ban stock buybacks like before 1982?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin...uired-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks/#496fdd2c6b1e

For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed. And it’s obvious why Wall Street loves them: Buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share — metrics that often guide lucrative executive bonuses.

As Reuters wrote recently, “Stock buybacks enrich the bosses even when business sags.”

 

[El_Machinae]

I want to point out the failure of the deficits. The externally held dollars were a reservoir that was not being used in a way that would provide local employment or taxation. And so, the tax cut.

If the tax cut had brought in money in a way that it could be utilized by the citizenry, there are strong odds that the deficit could have been reduced quite easily. But it wasn't. It was repatriated in a low-tax way, and then sorted into the economy according to the pre-existing wealth imbalance.

In the sweep of History, I think that we are going to see that 2018 and 2019 continue the trend of the rich getting richer. And the recession that will occur this year or in the next 2 years will just continue to devastate the working class. And then, we will be convinced to cut benefits to the Boomers, because cannot possibly tax the rich