Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Farm Boy]

Not addressing class, for starters.

Personal advantage. If I'm being generous, then advantage for specific gonad squeezing properties. But only skin deep ones. That part is a vanity project, not anything to do with meaningful diversity.

 

[Lexicus]

Not addressing class, for starters.

Personal advantage. If I'm being generous, then advantage for specific gonad squeezing properties. But only skin deep ones. That part is a vanity project, not anything to do with meaningful diversity.

So do you think white people who oppose affirmative action do so for reasons of personal advantange and to favor certain kinds of gonad-squeezings?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: C'mon guys less drama and more clarity please.

 

[Farm Boy]

Many do. But we just call them racists.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

The infamously Republican leaning Rasmussen poll has Trump at only a +1 versus Harris.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819051664449438108

 

[Lexicus]

Many do. But we just call them racists.

So, if it's racist to attempt to use policy to eliminate the effects of past and ongoing racial discrimination, where then? Do you think racial discrimination in the job market and college admissions is an essentially intractable problem?

 

[Farm Boy]

I think ignoring class in those policies is intentional. Especially when most of the harms cited are products of class. But jingle the keys and the morons are more than happy to prioritize the squeezings of thier filthy gonads.

Moderator Action: Please find a less dramatic was of expressing yourself. Birdjaguar

 

[Voidwalkin]

There is already a body of evidence showing that class-based affirmative action does not effectively address racial disparities in either the job market or college admissions.

An effective class-based AA system would inevitably end up addressing those imbalances.

But leaving that aside, why shouldn't we have both race and class-based affirmative action?

In a perfect world, we would.

Harris could announce the addition of substantive class-based AA tomorrow and I believe she'd ride that horse to the Oval Office. In comfort.

But it won't gather enough traction to be discussed, let alone passed, on a meaningful timetable in the current social environment of progressivism. It's far too dominated by identity-first thinking. To mention class as more important is radical in the current climate.

Socially, it's like walking into a room full of people armed with shotguns who face no meaningful consequence for bad target acquisition nor missing nor collateral damage, and telling them the pursuit of projects they're most passionate about is inefficient.

 

[Lexicus]

An effective class-based AA system would inevitably end up addressing those imbalances.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727272300021X

 

[Samson]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727272300021X

There have been more successful class based transfers of wealth.

 

[Senethro]

Within the context of America, class based redistribution was opposed by the right wing on the grounds that its goes to the wrong people (insert dog whistle) so its kinda hard to split them anyway.

 

[Fippy]

Odds confirm it's back to almost 50:50 now..
i did not expect that.

 

[Voidwalkin]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727272300021X

Taken me time to get around to this. I don't think you can judge on uni policies this anemic.

Top percent is probably going to favor high income students in low income districts. Predictably weak. Holistic review is a little better. Still weak. I would expect state involvement to be necessary to make effective class-based AA policies. Family income, owned real estate are the obvious starting points.

I wonder why you believe we don't already have such policies.

 

[Gorbles]

I wonder why you believe we don't already have such policies.

We can all play the wondering game, much like "why the constant focus on class and undermining or outright dismissal of other axes"?

To expand a bit more in good-faith, "identity-first" isn't how intersectionality works. Nor is the idea that "class being more important is considered radical" a truthful evaluation. A personal one, perhaps. Opinion, for sure, and valid as all opinion is. But not a factual observation that can be extrapolated in any grand manner. Class, race, gender, and more besides all matter, all play into each other (like Senethro already pointed out).

 

[Voidwalkin]

We can all play the wondering game, much like "why the constant focus on class and undermining or outright dismissal of other axes

Avoidance of a politics based on ethnic groupings, and to a lesser extent gender, is desirable to me, definitely.

If the goal is to ease economic inequality between rich and poor, an issue I believe to be of greatest importance immediately, a great majority is needed, or the deep entrenchment of the wealthy cannot be dislodged.

Class thinking provides an untapped reservoir of support that could easily power past the threshold. OTOH, identity first thinking usually results in a 50/50 split, as questions of priority and urgency of address lead to ground easily exploited by the wealthy, who are able to provide service to enough groupings(in exchange for a blind eye to naked pursuit of their economic self-interest) to remain electorally viable despite the wide unpopularity of said pursuit.

Nor is the idea that "class being more important is considered radical" a truthful evaluation

Tell it to the aforementioned professor Reed.

 

[Lexicus]

Avoidance of a politics based on ethnic groupings, and to a lesser extent gender, is desirable to me, definitely.

A politics that avoids any kind of conscious effort at racial justice is a politics based on affirming and reproducing white privilege.

Tell it to the aforementioned professor Reed.

The aforementioned professor Reed believes that race-based affirmative action is good & necessary; why do you suppose that is?

Class thinking provides an untapped reservoir of support

@sophie already addressed this point; Bernie tried this and got washed in the Democratic primary.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The aforementioned professor Reed believes that race-based affirmative action is good & necessary; why do you suppose that is?

A direct approach addresses historical imbalances specifically.

I only have issue with it when it's the whole of the approach.

already addressed this point; Bernie tried this and got washed in the Democratic primary.

Hardly the sole reason.

Worth mentioning, by the way, is that Clinton went on to defeat against Trump, who despite being the host of a whole slew of widely unpopular policies, still managed to win by wrangling just enough identity groups together to eek out the EC.

...a situation potentially repeated, in approximately 3 months time. Identity politics, turns out, is exploited very easily by the wealthy.

 

[Lexicus]

I only have issue with it when it's the whole of the approach.

You said that race-based affirmative action is bad and should be replaced with class-based affirmative action.

Worth mentioning, by the way, is that Clinton went on to defeat against Trump

sophie was referring to the 2020 primary.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Musk's Super PAC may start sending people email registers that look like voter registration forms and may end up deceiving people into thinking they registered.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/elon-musk-pac-voter-data-trump-harris.html

 

[Voidwalkin]

You said that race-based affirmative action is bad and should be replaced with class-based affirmative action

I said I'd prefer class-based AA, and that it would address most of the same issues, if done well with real muscle behind it.

That's not saying repeal AA, or saying it's bad. Do note I agreed we'd have both in a perfect world.

sophie was referring to the 2020 primary

Point still stands.

With identity first thinking in the driver seat, Dems are currently down 2pts nationwide, with
a very difficult EC situation, to a loony wanna-be authoritarian who sweats bronzer.