instituting discriminatory racial policies that target people based on the color of their skin — NOS4A2

Clearly I was talking about race and race-based policy and medicine. I mistakenly thought you were as well, but I guess your entire argument was a red herring. — NOS4A2

Clearly you're an idiot who doesn't speak English.

Is skin-color not used as a marker of race? It is, as are other biological factors.

Let’s get this out of the way, then. Do you believe people should be discriminated against on the basis of race?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Am I the only one a alarmed by the many socially correct rather than competence and accomplishment based appointments of the new administration? Ideology and loyalty seems to take precedence over competence, accomplishment, and character once again, reminiscent of the former evil administration, only in the opposite direction. If quick fixes to huge problems don't come in the first 100 days then will disappointment and apathy follow?

↪Olivier5, I can heartily recommend the Bernie meme inauguration threads out there for a good laugh. — jorndoe

Bernie Sanders' inauguration memes help raise $1.8 million for charity
"We're glad we can use my internet fame to help Vermonters in need," Sanders said. "But even this amount of money is no substitute for action by Congress."

Jan. 27, 2021, 6:08 PM EST / Source: Associated Press
By The Associated Press

About those wooly mittens that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wore to the presidential inauguration, sparking endless quirky memes across social media? They've helped to raise $1.8 million in the last five days for charitable organizations in Sanders' home state of Vermont, the independent senator announced Wednesday.

The sum comes from the sale of merchandise with the Jan. 20 image of him sitting with his arms and legs crossed, clad in his brown parka and recycled wool mittens.

Sanders put the first of the so-called "Chairman Sanders" merchandise, including T-shirts, sweatshirts and stickers, on his website Thursday night and the first run sold out in less than 30 minutes, he said. More merchandise was added over the weekend and sold out by Monday morning, he said.

"Jane and I were amazed by all the creativity shown by so many people over the last week, and we're glad we can use my internet fame to help Vermonters in need," Sanders said in a written statement. "But even this amount of money is no substitute for action by Congress, and I will be doing everything I can in Washington to make sure working people in Vermont and across the country get the relief they need in the middle of the worst crisis we've faced since the Great Depression."

Sanders' mittens were made by Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher who has a side business making mittens out of recycled wool. His inauguration look, also featuring the winter jacket made by Burton Snowboards, sparked countless memes from the photo taken by Agence France-Presse: The former presidential candidate could be found on social media timelines taking a seat on the subway, the moon and the couch with the cast of "Friends," among other creative locales. ....

The groups that will benefit from the proceeds of the "Chairman Sanders" items include area agencies on aging to fund Meals on Wheels throughout Vermont, Vermont community action agencies, Feeding Chittenden, Vermont Parent Child Network, The Chill Foundation, senior centers in Vermont and Bistate Primary Care for dental care improvements in the state, Sanders' office said.

Sanders' attire has also sparked other charitable endeavors. A crocheted doll of Sanders in his garb was auctioned off online and Burton Snowboards donated 50 jackets to the Burlington Department for Children and Families in Sanders' name, his office said.

Getty Images will donate its proceeds as part of the licensing agreement to put the photo on T-shirts, sweatshirts and stickers to Meals on Wheels of America, Sanders' office said.

Am I the only one a alarmed by the many socially correct rather than competence and accomplishment based appointments of the new administration? Ideology and loyalty seems to take precedence over competence, accomplishment, and character once again, reminiscent of the former evil administration, only in the opposite direction. If quick fixes to huge problems don't come in the first 100 days then will disappointment and apathy follow? — magritte

Why do you think them incompetent?

sold out in less than 30 minutes — Olivier5

That's awesome.

In the scheme of things, it's nice to know that some politicians are actually doing something right down to hungry children on the street.
Child poverty is an awful problem (as far as I'm concerned), but often dismissed by tax-phobic politicians.

To be fair to me, why would I think that Trump's initial appointees were political choices rather than based on competence? What norms should I use?

America barely weathered a lethal threat to its constitutional structure, a danger that continues to loom.
If I were Biden, I would want to make an impact urgently in the first 100 days. To do that, leaders of proven competence and accomplishment are needed now, regardless of affiliation. Pleasing my political loyalists and allies can wait. Else the rosy days of victory will quickly fade into disappointment about lack of achievements and empty rhetoric.

To be fair to me, why would I think that Trump's initial appointees were political choices rather than based on competence? What norms should I use? — magritte

It's your claim. It's not on others to explain it to you.

If I were Biden, I would want to make an impact urgently in the first 100 days. To do that, leaders of proven competence and accomplishment are needed now, regardless of affiliation. — magritte

You still haven't given a hint of a clue that he hasn't.

Biden has signed 30 executive orders in his first week, which to me is dictator status. Compare that to Trump’s 6 and Obama’s 5. Whatever he’s doing he’s doing it fast and with an iron fist.

Biden’s treasure Secretary Janet Yellen made a speech to Citadel for $800,000, but hasn’t recused herself from advising old Joe regarding the GameStop affair and Citadel’s involvement. Refilling the swamp is easy. When asked about Yellen, press secretary Jen Psaki was quick to remind us that Yellen is a woman.

But it’s nice to have a press secretary who understands the details.

It's your claim. It's not on others to explain it to you. — Kenosha Kid

Not all claims require proof by the claimant. If I claim Biden can't swim is the proof on me? Perhaps positive claims require proof but negative claims need only a single counterexample? Or perhaps I need only appeal to explicit idealistic motivations from the inaugural address as proof for misplaced intentions in naming people to key administration posts?

Ideals and speeches are wonderful for the masses of followers, but putting those ideals into practice as a social experiment on a grand scale as a bet on our future as a nation should be questionable and be questioned.

Biden has signed 30 executive orders in his first week, ... Compare that to Trump’s 6 and Obama’s 5. Whatever he’s doing he’s doing it fast — NOS4A2

As he should. No?

Not all claims require proof by the claimant. — magritte

Claims of fact do demand evidence. Otherwise "fact" and "making shit up" become the same thing: the post-truth philosophy.

Anyway, proof not required here, just any indication that what you're saying is remotely true.

Or perhaps I need only appeal to explicit idealistic motivations from the inaugural address as proof for misplaced intentions in naming people to key administration posts? — magritte

Oh, I get it. Him saying that racism is bad suggests that black people aren't qualified to do their jobs kind of thing.

Anyway, proof not required here, just any indication that what you're saying is remotely true. — Kenosha Kid

A neutral surveys of the breakdown of Biden's appointments might be helpful.
CNN
PPS
Brookings
What is noteworthy is the delay in the Senate on confirmations of appointees which, to me, only signals the entrenched trumpism of the Republicans. One should hope that exceptionally qualified appointees should receive relatively higher degree of support from both sides.

Oh, I get it. Him saying that racism is bad suggests that black people aren't qualified to do their jobs kind of thing. — Kenosha Kid

No, you don't get it. You are taking a neutral questioning remark to be racist. Perhaps I am operating in one of your blind spots?

Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal, that we are all created equal, and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, and fear — Biden's Inauguration speech

I take it that you actually believe this statement of Biden's and that now Biden intends for 'equality' to become not just an American ideal but an American fact.

What in your view is 'equality' and how does that apply to a group or to an individual? Is Black Lives Matter the same as Black Power? If not, which one should we be talking about?
NYmag, 'Equality'

A neutral surveys of the breakdown of Biden's appointments might be helpful.
CNN
PPS
Brookings — magritte

I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. Seems like the usual array of backgrounds in industry, law, politics and the military.

No, you don't get it. You are taking a neutral questioning remark to be racist. — magritte

Well, I don't know you and hope to be surprised but yes when people start claiming that women or ethnic minorities only got their jobs through positive discrimination then outright refuse to justify why the people in question weren't in fact qualified... it doesn't look promising. Or neutral.

I take it that you actually believe this statement of Biden's and that now Biden intends for 'equality' to become not just an American ideal but an American fact. — magritte

Are you against equality as a fact?

Is Black Lives Matter the same as Black Power? If not, which one should we be talking about? — magritte

We're talking about Biden's appointments, a topic you raised. It's still unclear to me why you think they were appointed because of their gender, skin colour, sexuality, etc. rather than regardless of their gender, skin colour, sexuality, etc.

Are you against equality as a fact? — Kenosha Kid

Yes. In nature, as opposed to math or logic, no two things are ever identical or equal in every way. They may be equivalent in certain respects but not equal. All electrons may be interchangeable meaning equivalent in fact, but no two are ever physically identical in every way. Scaling up, it becomes ever more the case.

1. Gender, race, etc. are categories of people that are more or less applicable to an individual.
2. Individual competence is an independent factor and is strongly related to the appointee's background and demonstrated effectiveness matching the job requirements in the exact circumstances.
3. An appointment is a position of social and economic power dependent on an appointee's ability to wield that power.

Biden's nominees attempt to tip the balance of power (3) in favor of representatives of various historically disadvantages groups with the implication that this power will be further delegated down the line. Ideally, that responds to the demands of minorities and other liberal allies such as Sanders followers.

The problem is that 1. and 2. are independent of each other, and if you would dare to research this, then first you would not be funded, second, you would not be published, and this before you ever did the research. That's because past research has already corroborated the inequality between groups of people, and the research caused a scandal, an uproar, and pretty much finished he careers of the scientists who did it. And no, I will not give the references. This does not mean that person X regardless of sex, race, etc. cannot be the best at what they do, simply, that statistical science will doubt it on statistical grounds. The reasons were much debated when I was in graduate school with the discussions being strongly steered away from the findings. In summary, the greatest person can be any genius, but inequity persists due to genetic selection (dare I say it?) as well as socioeconomic circumstances and cultural values.

The point is that if the world (or my much-needed brain transplant surgery) is at stake, I want the genius to do the job and not a well-respected minority representative.

Yes. In nature, as opposed to math or logic, no two things are ever identical or equal in every way. They may be equivalent in certain respects but not equal. — magritte

Let me stop you there. Equality in this context is not about an Arkansas inbred being given the same job and pay as a prodigious scientific genius. Equality is about precisely one's individual merits being the _only_ criteria for the limits of their success.

Biden referred to racism as a bad thing. One aspect of racism is to systematically disadvantage people of colour _despite_ their individual merits. What would be odd is if he then insisted in his appointments that only white men have the merits to be in office when, on paper, the non-white men and women you're complaining about seem par for the course for that level of public office, that is: they seem as qualified as the white male appointees you have no problem with.

The point is that if the world (or my much-needed brain transplant surgery) is at stake, I want the genius to do the job and not a well-respected minority representative. — magritte

That would be a good argument for demanding higher prerequisites of all appointees but a poor one for arguing against equally qualified non-white or female appointees. Since you haven't explained why the non-white men and women appointed are less qualified than the white men appointed but you particularly single them out as usurping roles meant for geniuses... well, that's not good.

Is skin-color not used as a marker of race? It is, as are other biological factors.

Let’s get this out of the way, then. Do you believe people should be discriminated against on the basis of race? — NOS4A2

Lots here, (though almost none of it addressed by my post).

Sure, many substitute skin pigmentation for race and base discrimination on it, that is (somewhat inaccurately) referred to as "racism". It is a small subset of the larger topic of "discrimination".

Many discriminate based on race (among many other things), that is not necessarily negative. However, you stipulated: "… discriminated AGAINST...", which, of course is negative by definition, so I am against that.

There are many examples of racial discrimination that are not negative (and I am not against those).

Lots here, (though almost none of it addressed by my post).

Sure, many substitute skin pigmentation for race and base discrimination on it, that is (somewhat inaccurately) referred to as "racism". It is a small subset of the larger topic of "discrimination".

Many discriminate based on race (among many other things), that is not necessarily negative. However, you stipulated: "… discriminated AGAINST...", which, of course is negative by definition, so I am against that.

There are many examples of racial discrimination that are not negative (and I am not against those).

There is little difference between so-called positive and negative racial discrimination, in my view. In each case, one adopts a perverted racial taxonomy, a race hierarchy, and applies it to actual people. To give preference to one racial group is to do so at the expense of other racial groups, with little care for the actual flesh and blood individuals involved. Positive racial discrimination is not contrary to racism. It is the continued application of racism.

There is little difference between so-called positive and negative racial discrimination, in my view. In each case, one adopts a perverted racial taxonomy, a race hierarchy, and applies it to actual people. To give preference to one racial group is to do so at the expense of other racial groups, with little care for the actual flesh and blood individuals involved. Positive racial discrimination is not contrary to racism. It is the continued application of racism. — NOS4A2

You are referring to favoring one race vs favoring a different one and calling that positive and negative. I agree with you that in the moment both are negative. However, Real Life is more nuanced. One issue is taking into account longer periods of time than just this moment. Another is that most racism that takes place is neither positive nor negative, it takes into account the fact that on average, there are differences between groups. Not necessarily among individuals.

Is it logical or illogical to take into account a real statistical difference between groups when dealing with an individual in that group? Not to stick with this difference when updated with individual information, but to start off in the absence of individual data/experience?

Is it logical or illogical to take into account a real statistical difference between groups when dealing with an individual in that group? Not to stick with this difference when updated with individual information, but to start off in the absence of individual data/experience?

It depends on the group. I think it is illogical to take account of statistical differences between groups if the existence of those groups can be easily questioned. Take the idea of reparations, for instance. I think there is a solid argument for reparations, and I do think the United States should compensate the victims of slavery. But should someone like Kamala Harris get reparations on the basis of her “race”, even though she is (according to her father) the descendant of a slaver?

Take the idea of reparations, for instance. I think there is a solid argument for reparations, and I do think the United States should compensate the victims of slavery. — NOS4A2

How do you think that should be addressed?

Rather than "reparations" for past crimes committed against whole peoples (genocide, slavery, ruthless economic exploitation, etc.), we should defund the class -- the ruling class -- that perpetrated the wrongs in the first place (and they are still at it).

Defunding the ruling class (through expropriation and public ownership of their wealth) would allow for the kind of economic redistribution that could help.

Even if there were a revolution and the ruling class were economically neutered, there are huge cultural problems to over come, and I am confident that we do not know how to do that.

I would be for defunding people and institutions who are guilty of those crimes against humanity, but I could not in good conscience lay blame and seek punishment upon an entire class of people without knowledge that each and every individual composing that class were guilty of said crimes.

I would not be opposed to defunding the government, though.

Rather than "reparations" for past crimes committed against whole peoples (genocide, slavery, ruthless economic exploitation, etc.), we should defund the class -- the ruling class -- that perpetrated the wrongs in the first place (and they are still at it).

Defunding the ruling class (through expropriation and public ownership of their wealth) would allow for the kind of economic redistribution that could help. — Bitter Crank

:100:

Also, if we just help people in proportion to their need, disproportionately needy demographics (e.g. black people) will receive a disproportionate amount of help automatically, to exactly the extent that they are disproportionately needy, and only for so long as that is the case.

Refilling the swamp is easy. — NOS4A2

Refilling? Oh you think that someone drained the swamp? Lol.

That's because you have a strong libertarian streak and view the government as your most probable enemy. Meanwhile, the capitalists are screwing you over left and right -- which you don't notice, apparently.

So you don't want to punish the whole class at once? That's fine; we can try and punish them one at a time, if that makes you happier. We'll start with the richest capitalists and most powerful members of the ruling class first, then work our way down to the bottom of the top 1%. Better? After that, we'll deal with your unfortunate case. Don't leave town.

There aren't any slave owners left.

It depends on the group. I think it is illogical to take account of statistical differences between groups if the existence of those groups can be easily questioned. Take the idea of reparations, for instance. I think there is a solid argument for reparations, and I do think the United States should compensate the victims of slavery. But should someone like Kamala Harris get reparations on the basis of her “race”, even though she is (according to her father) the descendant of a slaver? — NOS4A2

Interesting. I mean it's interesting that when replying to my post about updating initial discriminatory practices (based on group knowledge) when updated with individual information, you used an example using individual information.

As to your specific query, why bend over backwards to use an example that has little to chance of happening in the best case, then use as your specific example a case that is by your admission, the opposite of the best case?

So I would answer thusly: as a thought experiment, I see your Vice President Harris point, but as policy, it is commonplace for criteria to inclusionary rather than exclusionary.