Jaybird:
Much like with racism, the fact that a problem cannot be solved by calling a beneficiary of structural racism a “racist” does not prove that structural racism does not exist.
So, too, here.
Quite. If the argument were that soda taxes are being helped along by "structural classism" and unexamined prejudices on the part of policymakers, then I'd have no objection.
Jaybird:
Oh, I’m sure it’s nowhere near that active.
Well, yeah, and that's the problem with what @Dand is arguing. Soda taxes seem dumb and classist and paternalistic, sure, but he's inferring a lot more than that from Krugman's apparent support for them, or, for that matter, his opposition to Sanders.
Wondering whether it’s the constituency associated with the drinks seems as fair a question as any.
It's a monumental leap from there to, "These policies are deliberately designed to make room for hipsters by making life unbearable for the working class, which is the only possible reason Paul Krugman could possibly support them."
The idea that the only basis for comparison between presidential candidates is their mannerisms is fascinatingly bizarre.
Compared to that, it's merely far from obvious that Sanders is particularly off-putting to "high SES northerners", based on the exit polling I've seen.
Why is it crazy to suggest the city officials are trying to encourage gentrification by setting policies that are favorable to yuppie and hipsters while making like more difficult for the working class?
It's crazy to cite such a suggestion to prove that Paul Krugman is, like, totally obviously motivated by snobbery when he supports the soda tax, and then provide no more evidence for it than allusions to the self-evident perfidy of city officials, yuppies and hipsters.
Soda taxes a passed with the deliberate intent of pushing the working class out of cities and replacing them with hipsters.
I... wait, what?
Your theories about liberal snobbery might be better received if they contained more evidence and fewer dark hints about how the Gnomes of Zurich are directing the Boy Sprouts to destroy Fnord Motor Company.
It seems to have, in that in many conversations everyone involved will agree that "socialism" means welfare state programs rather than collective/government/democratic control of the means of production. I'm beginning to think arguments to the contrary are as much an ultimately futile rearguard linguistic action as arguments that "conservatism" is really about resistance to change rather than center-right policy preferences.
Is it weird that my first impulse for [Ed3] is to blame the shelter-in-place active shooter training stuff, not the author's weirdly meddlesome bent? Maybe it's just because I'm annoyed that I have to waste my time with similar nonsense this week.
That’s cool. That’s the marketplace of ideas for you. But that’s not what I was responding to.
Really? Because I believe what @veronica-d and I are describing is using the very mechanisms of that marketplace to keep dangerous and inferior products out of it.
Because I don’t think I see a transparent attempt to spread antisemitism there.
I don't either. I think I see a poorly disguised attempt to spread anti-semitism there. Bigotry is rarely presented without a pretext, and in the case of bigotry against Jews, that pretext is routinely based on the charge that we have too much power.
Which is why I’m not very comfortable with bringing down the sledgehammer of justice here.
Given that the sledgehammer in this case consists of harsh criticism, I can't really say I agree. That's a key element of maintaining social norms.
So the inverse of that is that whites are OVERrepresented.
It's not really the same thing to my mind at all. I'd argue there's a specific problem with under-representation, in that it's at least arguably likely that the Senate would be better served by a more racially diverse composition, because people tend to have meaningfully different perspectives on account of their race.
So *IF* (big if) Jews are overrepresented, can that be a problem?
I suppose it's not technically 100% impossible, but...
Can that be discussed?
...the benefits of doing so seem remarkably small compared to the benefits of a social norm against lines of discussion that have a strong likelihood of segueing into anti-semitic conspiracy theories and justification for discrimination. Indeed, it's exactly this sort of concern about "Jewish over-representation" that led many prestigious universities to have quotas on the maximum number of Jewish students admitted through the 1960s or so.
No, I evidently missed a key word in when I typed that sentence. I think African Americans are underrepresented in the Senate and that it's not a racist idea to think there should be more of them in the Senate.
I'm under the impression that the Federal RFRA wouldn't apply to Texas' TRAP laws.
However, I do wonder if they could make a substantially similar argument against the Hyde Amendment. My understanding is that one of the reasons the majority found in favor of Hobby Lobby was that it was a significant burden to not let the corporation take advantage of the tax benefits of providing its employees with health insurance.
My prediction is that it will be fine(ish) for the parts of California people care about and not give for the parts people don’t.
Yeah, that is my fear as well. It's less obvious to me how it will play out around the (IMO pretty likely) negative impacts on the parts of California people don't care about.
I spent a couple minutes typing and deleting the first sentence of the response to @troublesome-frog's question, and I have to say a lot of my struggle was to find something to say that @veronica-d hadn't said already, and better than I did.
I'd probably demur from thinking the question of whether there are rules/what are the rules is itself likely to be asked in bad faith. I can offer no better justification for this that in my experience some people are just very uncomfortable with the idea that they navigate these discussions without rules to follow.
Nonetheless, even when asked in good faith, I think the question best answered with an explanation like @veronica-d's.
Would the issue have shaken out any differently if they had included the cross on top of the mission from the very first? It would seem much easier to argue they were just including it to more accurately represent a historically significant building without any endorsement of religion.
The details of the California constitutional injunction aside, I'd think that would be enough to justify the inclusion of the cross in the 2014 seal regardless.
And you’ll say “but those people who lose their minimum-wage jobs will go on welfare!” and I’ll reply “what’s so great about a shitass job like flipping burgers that we want someone to do that to support a family for a whole career? Why not just give ’em money?”
What if I were to reply, "Because go too far in that direction and it ends up being a subsidy not to the poor people, but the employers who get their labor for peanuts?"
This is (IMO) a tricky balance to strike, and this sort of thing already occurs with various means-tested programs that employed people are eligible for (like Medicaid). It also goes the other way, through various benefits that employers are mandated to pay for.
(I'm skeptical that a $15/hour minimum wage is appropriate for the entire state of California, and worry that this particular experiment will, at the very best, be a heavily qualified success and at worst will be a near-disaster.)
Nonetheless, they should know better. Not just because that's a dumb and reductive and wrong way to look at things, but because so many of them not only purport to know better but actually seem to know better in other circumstances. Seeing folks who've used the word "intersectionality" without irony do this... well, the phrase, "YOU HAD ONE JOB!" comes to mind.
Also, I can't say it never goes beyond that. Hell, if Jews were just another bunch of privileged white people, what this dude got in trouble for wouldn't even bear mentioning.
Do we really think of Catholics (a somewhat uniform, monolithic entity) as a threat to nationstates everywhere???
Er, that was an extremely common motivation or pretext for all sorts of incendiary and bigoted anti-Catholic rhetoric up until, I dunno, maybe 1960 or so. The Church as an institution is a somewhat uniform, monolithic entity, but Catholics, as, say, a large demographic group in the US, are anything but. I sometimes (half-)joke that, "I'M CATHOLIC AND I VOTE!" is the world's least informative bumper sticker.
I think that, in general, there's a strong case to be made in favor of closing off certain areas of discussion. It's actually not even a hard call--there are many reasons why discussion of something would not be useful. I also think that when people throw thing like this sort of discussion of excessive Jewish control in that box, they are being entirely reasonable. It's a double whammy of people having, in the past, very frequently used it as a bad faith cover for advancing vile policies and for being such a central feature in stuff that is straight up lunatic conspiracy theory.
Could the question be asked innocently? Sure. But that's not the way to bet, not (IMO) by a long shot. There are many failure modes in discourse, and falsely assessing that someone is arguing in bad faith is not always the most important one to avoid.
Just as a point of order, I'm pretty sure the reaction to an argument that there should be about six times as many African American Senators as there are currently would be to regard the person making at as racist.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Politics {2016.04.26.T}”
Quite. If the argument were that soda taxes are being helped along by "structural classism" and unexamined prejudices on the part of policymakers, then I'd have no objection.
"
Well, yeah, and that's the problem with what @Dand is arguing. Soda taxes seem dumb and classist and paternalistic, sure, but he's inferring a lot more than that from Krugman's apparent support for them, or, for that matter, his opposition to Sanders.
"
Wondering whether it’s the constituency associated with the drinks seems as fair a question as any.
It's a monumental leap from there to, "These policies are deliberately designed to make room for hipsters by making life unbearable for the working class, which is the only possible reason Paul Krugman could possibly support them."
"
The idea that the only basis for comparison between presidential candidates is their mannerisms is fascinatingly bizarre.
Compared to that, it's merely far from obvious that Sanders is particularly off-putting to "high SES northerners", based on the exit polling I've seen.
"
Why is it crazy to suggest the city officials are trying to encourage gentrification by setting policies that are favorable to yuppie and hipsters while making like more difficult for the working class?
It's crazy to cite such a suggestion to prove that Paul Krugman is, like, totally obviously motivated by snobbery when he supports the soda tax, and then provide no more evidence for it than allusions to the self-evident perfidy of city officials, yuppies and hipsters.
"
Soda taxes a passed with the deliberate intent of pushing the working class out of cities and replacing them with hipsters.
I... wait, what?
Your theories about liberal snobbery might be better received if they contained more evidence and fewer dark hints about how the Gnomes of Zurich are directing the Boy Sprouts to destroy Fnord Motor Company.
"
Krugman is attacking Sanders for not being a food snob (his supposed reasoning is pretense).
I see. Your allegation really does have absolutely nothing to do with the words Krugman actually wrote.
"
This is what I mean when I say that for high SES liberals snobbery is the reason for their liberalism.
What does that have to do with the words Krugman actually wrote?
"
It seems to have, in that in many conversations everyone involved will agree that "socialism" means welfare state programs rather than collective/government/democratic control of the means of production. I'm beginning to think arguments to the contrary are as much an ultimately futile rearguard linguistic action as arguments that "conservatism" is really about resistance to change rather than center-right policy preferences.
On “Linky Friday #163: Home Ec”
Is it weird that my first impulse for [Ed3] is to blame the shelter-in-place active shooter training stuff, not the author's weirdly meddlesome bent? Maybe it's just because I'm annoyed that I have to waste my time with similar nonsense this week.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.04.14.Th}”
That’s cool. That’s the marketplace of ideas for you. But that’s not what I was responding to.
Really? Because I believe what @veronica-d and I are describing is using the very mechanisms of that marketplace to keep dangerous and inferior products out of it.
Because I don’t think I see a transparent attempt to spread antisemitism there.
I don't either. I think I see a poorly disguised attempt to spread anti-semitism there. Bigotry is rarely presented without a pretext, and in the case of bigotry against Jews, that pretext is routinely based on the charge that we have too much power.
Which is why I’m not very comfortable with bringing down the sledgehammer of justice here.
Given that the sledgehammer in this case consists of harsh criticism, I can't really say I agree. That's a key element of maintaining social norms.
"
So the inverse of that is that whites are OVERrepresented.
It's not really the same thing to my mind at all. I'd argue there's a specific problem with under-representation, in that it's at least arguably likely that the Senate would be better served by a more racially diverse composition, because people tend to have meaningfully different perspectives on account of their race.
So *IF* (big if) Jews are overrepresented, can that be a problem?
I suppose it's not technically 100% impossible, but...
Can that be discussed?
...the benefits of doing so seem remarkably small compared to the benefits of a social norm against lines of discussion that have a strong likelihood of segueing into anti-semitic conspiracy theories and justification for discrimination. Indeed, it's exactly this sort of concern about "Jewish over-representation" that led many prestigious universities to have quotas on the maximum number of Jewish students admitted through the 1960s or so.
"
No, I evidently missed a key word in when I typed that sentence. I think African Americans are underrepresented in the Senate and that it's not a racist idea to think there should be more of them in the Senate.
On “A Tale Of Two Seals”
I'm under the impression that the Federal RFRA wouldn't apply to Texas' TRAP laws.
However, I do wonder if they could make a substantially similar argument against the Hyde Amendment. My understanding is that one of the reasons the majority found in favor of Hobby Lobby was that it was a significant burden to not let the corporation take advantage of the tax benefits of providing its employees with health insurance.
"
Surely no one who wants to publicly display a cross could possibly have their own property to place it on.
"
I had an acquaintance in high school who identified as Greek Orthodox.
She would make burnt offerings[1] to Zeus.
[1] Rice cakes.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.04.14.Th}”
My prediction is that it will be fine(ish) for the parts of California people care about and not give for the parts people don’t.
Yeah, that is my fear as well. It's less obvious to me how it will play out around the (IMO pretty likely) negative impacts on the parts of California people don't care about.
"
I spent a couple minutes typing and deleting the first sentence of the response to @troublesome-frog's question, and I have to say a lot of my struggle was to find something to say that @veronica-d hadn't said already, and better than I did.
I'd probably demur from thinking the question of whether there are rules/what are the rules is itself likely to be asked in bad faith. I can offer no better justification for this that in my experience some people are just very uncomfortable with the idea that they navigate these discussions without rules to follow.
Nonetheless, even when asked in good faith, I think the question best answered with an explanation like @veronica-d's.
On “A Tale Of Two Seals”
Would the issue have shaken out any differently if they had included the cross on top of the mission from the very first? It would seem much easier to argue they were just including it to more accurately represent a historically significant building without any endorsement of religion.
The details of the California constitutional injunction aside, I'd think that would be enough to justify the inclusion of the cross in the 2014 seal regardless.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.04.14.Th}”
And you’ll say “but those people who lose their minimum-wage jobs will go on welfare!” and I’ll reply “what’s so great about a shitass job like flipping burgers that we want someone to do that to support a family for a whole career? Why not just give ’em money?”
What if I were to reply, "Because go too far in that direction and it ends up being a subsidy not to the poor people, but the employers who get their labor for peanuts?"
This is (IMO) a tricky balance to strike, and this sort of thing already occurs with various means-tested programs that employed people are eligible for (like Medicaid). It also goes the other way, through various benefits that employers are mandated to pay for.
(I'm skeptical that a $15/hour minimum wage is appropriate for the entire state of California, and worry that this particular experiment will, at the very best, be a heavily qualified success and at worst will be a near-disaster.)
"
This is certainly true.
Nonetheless, they should know better. Not just because that's a dumb and reductive and wrong way to look at things, but because so many of them not only purport to know better but actually seem to know better in other circumstances. Seeing folks who've used the word "intersectionality" without irony do this... well, the phrase, "YOU HAD ONE JOB!" comes to mind.
Also, I can't say it never goes beyond that. Hell, if Jews were just another bunch of privileged white people, what this dude got in trouble for wouldn't even bear mentioning.
"
Do we really think of Catholics (a somewhat uniform, monolithic entity) as a threat to nationstates everywhere???
Er, that was an extremely common motivation or pretext for all sorts of incendiary and bigoted anti-Catholic rhetoric up until, I dunno, maybe 1960 or so. The Church as an institution is a somewhat uniform, monolithic entity, but Catholics, as, say, a large demographic group in the US, are anything but. I sometimes (half-)joke that, "I'M CATHOLIC AND I VOTE!" is the world's least informative bumper sticker.
"
I think that, in general, there's a strong case to be made in favor of closing off certain areas of discussion. It's actually not even a hard call--there are many reasons why discussion of something would not be useful. I also think that when people throw thing like this sort of discussion of excessive Jewish control in that box, they are being entirely reasonable. It's a double whammy of people having, in the past, very frequently used it as a bad faith cover for advancing vile policies and for being such a central feature in stuff that is straight up lunatic conspiracy theory.
Could the question be asked innocently? Sure. But that's not the way to bet, not (IMO) by a long shot. There are many failure modes in discourse, and falsely assessing that someone is arguing in bad faith is not always the most important one to avoid.
"
Among other things. (NSFWish.)
"
Just as a point of order, I'm pretty sure the reaction to an argument that there should be about six times as many African American Senators as there are currently would be to regard the person making at as racist.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.