I happen to agree with this statement but the problem is that if the left wants to actually make this criticism of the right stick much less push for an actually colorblind system they need to explicitly disavow much of the non-colorblind anti-racist framework.
This is the big trap the left dug for themselves. Unfortunately to many people on the left the vibe they get from forceful advocacy of colorblindness is "we don't really care about the systemic ways in which our society treats some races worse than others." Not because the ideal inherently has that feature but because when a ton of tiny individual judgements add up (eg each policeman deciding who to stop based on whether they are dressed like the dealers they caught before) to an unequal playing field it is often objections about colorblindness that stand in the way of the obvious (imo bad) things you can do about it.
If the democrats hadn't become identified with those views they could just shut up and implement smart solutions that do address these concerns without violating principles of colorblindness. But as it is they need to denouce the non-colorblind approach or no one will believe they have really changed their tune. And the problem is that the things you need to say to convince voters you do care about fixing these systemic racial inequalities put the whole colorblindness impression at risk (eg it's colorblind to decide to use some facially nuetral category for college admissions until you tell everyone you are going to do it because of its racial correlation).
Can’t believe after all we’ve been through as a nation we still live in a country where awarding benefits must be race neutral but inflicting punishment on the basis of race is ok. You can’t get sent to Harvard but you sure can get sent to Jail.
So the police should apply exactly the same scrutiny to 90 year old Asian females as 18 year old white males? That makes sense to you? Because each group is exactly as likely to be up to no good.
The Democratic party needs to tie itself to the mast to facilitate dialogue between its centrists and activists so the power asymetry between them is reduced.
Today I learned: "Congressional Republicans are fighting to force D.C. to stop using cameras to catch speeding drivers in the city because a lot of people who are tough on crime suddenly become hardcore civil libertarians when it comes to enforcement measures that might affect them." Imagine that!
Did Matt make this one free just to remind us that there are a *lot* of racists out there and they *really* like to talk about it? People are saying.....
Another point I want to make about traffic cameras that this comment is a good place to put it under is that there can be a NIMBY aspect to it to. People might be amenable to the concept in general, and even especially support them near where they live, but oppose them in specific spots on their regular commute.
I think you're right. And it's weird to me. I hate having to enter that intersection so cautiously all the time. Even worse, one of my kids is a 20 something with autism. This makes it difficult for her to cross the street. One day, some driver will think "that person is looking right at me, so it's ok that I just go". And my kid will just step in front of a car going 40 mph. Ugh.
This is such dangerously naive thinking. It reminds me of being a kid in the 90s, being taught that "race doesn't matter, we're all human," and everyone (most of us white) smiled and clapped.
It turns out, that in the real world, race matters a lot. It's very real and very important. It's not just "skin color" like having a sun tan or a different pigmentation. It's a core part of our body, our family, our culture, our group-formation, and our identity. It doesn't just magically go away when you stop noticing it.
More to the point... even if *you* don't notice it, other people will. What that has meant, in practice, is a huge focus on ethnic identities for every group *except* white people. Ethnic movies , ethnic political groups, ethnic college clubs, ethnic DEI, ethnic restaurants, ethnic congressional caucuses... and also ethnic gangs and cartels. It's only white people that are expected to be pure individuals, with no culture or groups of our own.
Of course, in practice there are still many groups that are mostly or entirely white. Environmentalism, country clubs, metal music, organized political protests, etc... pretty much everything on the "stuff white people like" list. But since they're not *supposed* to be white, they end up doing peformative apologies and flagellation about how guilty they feel for being too white. It makes it miserable and embarassing to be in any of these groups, and leads to a lot of white people just being atomized in society.
(of course, there's also the other extreme. The white groups that are explicitly, proudly racist. Those are also miserable but for different reasons. It turns out that when white ethnic identities is explicitly supressed by society, the only people willing to join are deranged sociopaths who are willing to publically flout society's rules and commit crimes)
We shouldn't be racist. But we shouldn't be colorblind either. We have to find a middle ground here, and I'm tired of people telling me that it has to be one or the other.
+1. Would love to see everyone live up to the basic commitment of “no racial discrimination”. Unfortunately we seem to be heading in the wrong direction.
As Kristi Noem declares, “they’re all criminals.” Traffic cameras prove this inconvenient point is precisely true about American drivers, so of course we can’t have that.
Was stop and frisk ever *just* determined by race? The way I understood it, police stopped and frisked anyone they thought looked suspicious, and young black men got stopped way more often than other groups. Since young black men are also overrepresented among muggers, armed robbers, etc., this leaves open the possibility that the disproportionate stopping and frisking was due to an honest attempt to find the criminals that landed more heavily on young black men than other groups. (I bet there was never a place where old black women were disproportionately stopped and frisked.)
Well that's just sexism and agism among cops who think silly things like elderly black ladies aren't just a likely as any other group to engage in rapes, muggings, gang violence... All groups are exactly the same - everyone knows that.
So I think it's fair to say that most liberals favor some kind of affirmative action (departing from treating everyone equally to achieve some social goals like a better racial mix in the entering class of a university or the set of promotions to management given in a company). And most conservatives seem to favor at least some kinds of racial profiling, treating people differently by race/sex/ethnicity/religion to decide whom to search or stop on the street.
One difference there is the goal (perhaps most liberals find changing the racial mix at selective universities important enough to violate the normal principle of equal treatment for everyone, and few conservatives agree). Less street crime is a goal most people care about, but I think right now a lot more conservatives than liberals care about great deal about efficiently finding and deporting people here illegally.
Another difference is timeliness. In policing and immigration enforcement, I think you end up making a lot of quick "should I check this guy out" decisions with relatively little information other than obvious stuff like race, sex, age, dress, tattoos, etc. In college admissions, hiring and promotions, contracting, etc., you can get a whole lot of additional information before making a decision.
“Less street crime is a goal most people care about, but I think right now a lot more conservatives than liberals care about great deal about efficiently finding and deporting people here illegally. “
But it’s highly questionable that illegal immigration is responsible for more street crime.
The extremes of the left and right agree that race is very important and people should be treated differently according to their race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. I wish the mainstream of both movements were strongly attached to treating everyone equally, but instead it seems like the moderates from each movement are being drawn ever closer to the extremes' positions.
I happen to agree with this statement but the problem is that if the left wants to actually make this criticism of the right stick much less push for an actually colorblind system they need to explicitly disavow much of the non-colorblind anti-racist framework.
This is the big trap the left dug for themselves. Unfortunately to many people on the left the vibe they get from forceful advocacy of colorblindness is "we don't really care about the systemic ways in which our society treats some races worse than others." Not because the ideal inherently has that feature but because when a ton of tiny individual judgements add up (eg each policeman deciding who to stop based on whether they are dressed like the dealers they caught before) to an unequal playing field it is often objections about colorblindness that stand in the way of the obvious (imo bad) things you can do about it.
If the democrats hadn't become identified with those views they could just shut up and implement smart solutions that do address these concerns without violating principles of colorblindness. But as it is they need to denouce the non-colorblind approach or no one will believe they have really changed their tune. And the problem is that the things you need to say to convince voters you do care about fixing these systemic racial inequalities put the whole colorblindness impression at risk (eg it's colorblind to decide to use some facially nuetral category for college admissions until you tell everyone you are going to do it because of its racial correlation).
Can’t believe after all we’ve been through as a nation we still live in a country where awarding benefits must be race neutral but inflicting punishment on the basis of race is ok. You can’t get sent to Harvard but you sure can get sent to Jail.
So the police should apply exactly the same scrutiny to 90 year old Asian females as 18 year old white males? That makes sense to you? Because each group is exactly as likely to be up to no good.
The Democratic party needs to tie itself to the mast to facilitate dialogue between its centrists and activists so the power asymetry between them is reduced.
Today I learned: "Congressional Republicans are fighting to force D.C. to stop using cameras to catch speeding drivers in the city because a lot of people who are tough on crime suddenly become hardcore civil libertarians when it comes to enforcement measures that might affect them." Imagine that!
After scrolling through the comments today, oof, Happy MLK Day... I guess
Apparently celebrating MLK Day is a great time to *checks notes* rant about affirmative action and defend racial profiling.
Did Matt make this one free just to remind us that there are a *lot* of racists out there and they *really* like to talk about it? People are saying.....
Holidays sure do provide an opening to get some poasting in.
I was shown 'Eyes on the Prize' at least once a year and I still enjoy it.. Such an optimistic view of the future.
I begged for a red light camera near my house. People fly through Cold reds all the time. It sucks.
Another point I want to make about traffic cameras that this comment is a good place to put it under is that there can be a NIMBY aspect to it to. People might be amenable to the concept in general, and even especially support them near where they live, but oppose them in specific spots on their regular commute.
I think you're right. And it's weird to me. I hate having to enter that intersection so cautiously all the time. Even worse, one of my kids is a 20 something with autism. This makes it difficult for her to cross the street. One day, some driver will think "that person is looking right at me, so it's ok that I just go". And my kid will just step in front of a car going 40 mph. Ugh.
This is such dangerously naive thinking. It reminds me of being a kid in the 90s, being taught that "race doesn't matter, we're all human," and everyone (most of us white) smiled and clapped.
It turns out, that in the real world, race matters a lot. It's very real and very important. It's not just "skin color" like having a sun tan or a different pigmentation. It's a core part of our body, our family, our culture, our group-formation, and our identity. It doesn't just magically go away when you stop noticing it.
More to the point... even if *you* don't notice it, other people will. What that has meant, in practice, is a huge focus on ethnic identities for every group *except* white people. Ethnic movies , ethnic political groups, ethnic college clubs, ethnic DEI, ethnic restaurants, ethnic congressional caucuses... and also ethnic gangs and cartels. It's only white people that are expected to be pure individuals, with no culture or groups of our own.
Of course, in practice there are still many groups that are mostly or entirely white. Environmentalism, country clubs, metal music, organized political protests, etc... pretty much everything on the "stuff white people like" list. But since they're not *supposed* to be white, they end up doing peformative apologies and flagellation about how guilty they feel for being too white. It makes it miserable and embarassing to be in any of these groups, and leads to a lot of white people just being atomized in society.
(of course, there's also the other extreme. The white groups that are explicitly, proudly racist. Those are also miserable but for different reasons. It turns out that when white ethnic identities is explicitly supressed by society, the only people willing to join are deranged sociopaths who are willing to publically flout society's rules and commit crimes)
We shouldn't be racist. But we shouldn't be colorblind either. We have to find a middle ground here, and I'm tired of people telling me that it has to be one or the other.
Strong “how come there’s no White History Month” energy 🙄
+1. Would love to see everyone live up to the basic commitment of “no racial discrimination”. Unfortunately we seem to be heading in the wrong direction.
They are being judged by their accent, not the color of their skin
As Kristi Noem declares, “they’re all criminals.” Traffic cameras prove this inconvenient point is precisely true about American drivers, so of course we can’t have that.
FYI for those who exclude the Bible from their literacy, the quote is Isaiah 40:4. That chapter is a magnificent poem about human hope and aspiration.
Thanks to King some of the eloquence of the Hebrew prophets still circulates.
More likely the eloquence and of NKJ than anyone writing in ancient Hebrew I think. For all its flaws NKJ has excellent prose.
Was stop and frisk ever *just* determined by race? The way I understood it, police stopped and frisked anyone they thought looked suspicious, and young black men got stopped way more often than other groups. Since young black men are also overrepresented among muggers, armed robbers, etc., this leaves open the possibility that the disproportionate stopping and frisking was due to an honest attempt to find the criminals that landed more heavily on young black men than other groups. (I bet there was never a place where old black women were disproportionately stopped and frisked.)
Well that's just sexism and agism among cops who think silly things like elderly black ladies aren't just a likely as any other group to engage in rapes, muggings, gang violence... All groups are exactly the same - everyone knows that.
Remember when Kendi was all "it's not enough to be 'not racist,' one must be actively 'anti-racist?'"
I had a lot of thoughts about that, but one of them was "are you sure we're good on 'not racist?' I don't think everybody's there yet."
Kendi certainly wasn't.
He literally used to believe white people were devils and we were all supposed to treat that like it was trivia lol
So I think it's fair to say that most liberals favor some kind of affirmative action (departing from treating everyone equally to achieve some social goals like a better racial mix in the entering class of a university or the set of promotions to management given in a company). And most conservatives seem to favor at least some kinds of racial profiling, treating people differently by race/sex/ethnicity/religion to decide whom to search or stop on the street.
One difference there is the goal (perhaps most liberals find changing the racial mix at selective universities important enough to violate the normal principle of equal treatment for everyone, and few conservatives agree). Less street crime is a goal most people care about, but I think right now a lot more conservatives than liberals care about great deal about efficiently finding and deporting people here illegally.
Another difference is timeliness. In policing and immigration enforcement, I think you end up making a lot of quick "should I check this guy out" decisions with relatively little information other than obvious stuff like race, sex, age, dress, tattoos, etc. In college admissions, hiring and promotions, contracting, etc., you can get a whole lot of additional information before making a decision.
“Less street crime is a goal most people care about, but I think right now a lot more conservatives than liberals care about great deal about efficiently finding and deporting people here illegally. “
But it’s highly questionable that illegal immigration is responsible for more street crime.
I think there's a lot less difference between the mainstream of the two parties than Matt or others would like to admit.
The extremes of the left and right agree that race is very important and people should be treated differently according to their race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. I wish the mainstream of both movements were strongly attached to treating everyone equally, but instead it seems like the moderates from each movement are being drawn ever closer to the extremes' positions.