3 ms·

yours would best be described as the 'naive' take on the situation, and rests on a false premise. These minorities need 'help' in that a majority is going to b

yours would best be described as the 'naive' take on the situation, and rests on a false premise. These minorities need 'help' in that a majority is going to be self-interested and lacking compassion or any sort of integrity at larger scope. In the U.S. this might take the form of tax loopholes for speedboats and golf memberships eating into funding for basic social services (infrastructure, law enforcement, education resources and such) on the other side of town. If you can unpack the above and place yourself in the shoes of the people on the bad end of that deal, you might start to get the idea.

blackflame7000 7y ago
There will always be a majority and there will always be a minority. But the thought process behind, "they are a minority, therefore they need assistance" is elitism at best and racism at worst. Furthermore, the laws that we pass that give special treatment to one group over another make that divide all the more permanent.
- comex 7y ago
  It's not about giving anyone assistance or an advantage, it's about giving people representation. With single-member districts, if a group makes up, say, 20% of the population in each district, they don't get 20% of the representatives, but 0%. If we had proportional representation, they would get 20% of the representatives, but we don't, and majority-minority districts are basically a bandaid to simulate it in a subset of cases. To be eligible for a majority-minority district, a minority group must be "politically cohesive" and "sufficiently numerous and compact to form a majority in a single-member district", while the majority group must "votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it [..] usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate". (Thornburg v. Gingles) In other words, there must be a political bloc that (a) is not receiving any representation in the area and (b) would have representation with a majority-minority district. Letting them have that in no way gives them an advantage over the majority, whose preferred candidates will still control all the other districts. Why not apply this to political blocs that exist based on factors other than race – like plain old conservative versus liberal? Well, I think we should; again, I'd prefer proportional representation. But the current rule is enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which specifically calls out discrimination based on race – something that was a huge problem in 1965, and is still a problem today. Compared to other types of political blocs, racial ones are disproportionately excluded from the political system. And morally speaking, although being discriminated against due to your political beliefs is bad, being discriminated against due to your race is somewhat worse, because you can choose one but not the other.
- macintux 7y ago
  How about “they’re a minority with a long history of being enslaved, impoverished, disparaged, denied basic rights, denied access, denied the ballot box, denied representation, denied life itself”? Would that make any difference in your judgment on the matter? Although comex’s answer is, probably, more important.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  >There will always be a majority Not if there are more than 2 groups. There could easily be 3 minorities with 0 majorities.
- memetomancer 7y ago
  * The laws we are talking about are to mitigate abuse and oppression by a majority. * You seem especially vitriolic in defending the status quo. * The status quo is full of examples wherein a minority group is unfairly impacted. * You are even willing to make the claim that these protections are themselves racist and should not be attempted under any circumstances. I think most decent minded folks can see where this is leading.
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    > You seem especially vitriolic in defending the status quo. I'm vitriolic towards any law that gives one group preferential treatment under the law. The entire premise of American democracy is majority rule within limits. The founding fathers already gave us ways to protect the minority's rights via the judicial system and the constitution. You cannot legislate status quo because it is derived from the sentiment of the population. If you want to change the sentiment you need to halt the division. You cannot pass a bill forcing black to love white, you can only pass bills that make the distinction irrelevant. > I think most decent-minded folks can see where this is leading. Hopefully to a world where people are judged by the content of their character and not by some physical attribute or thing they identify as.
    - memetomancer 7y ago
      as for "content of character", you have been presented with the mechanism of the oppression and still argue vehemently against remediation or protections. Juust so you are aware, this all extends far beyond questions of race, not sure why you are so focused on that, but it's probably pretty telling. Also, I'm not at all sure what you see as a distinction between these protections and "founding fathers already gave us ways to protect the minority's rights via the judicial system...". We are discussing implementation of that Founding Father Judicial system stuff in this thread, please expand on why you think it serves as an argument against modfying or creating laws to protect abused classes?
      - blackflame7000 7y ago

blackflame7000 7y ago

There will always be a majority and there will always be a minority. But the thought process behind, "they are a minority, therefore they need assistance" is elitism at best and racism at worst. Furthermore, the laws that we pass that give special treatment to one group over another make that divide all the more permanent.

comex 7y ago
It's not about giving anyone assistance or an advantage, it's about giving people representation. With single-member districts, if a group makes up, say, 20% of the population in each district, they don't get 20% of the representatives, but 0%. If we had proportional representation, they would get 20% of the representatives, but we don't, and majority-minority districts are basically a bandaid to simulate it in a subset of cases. To be eligible for a majority-minority district, a minority group must be "politically cohesive" and "sufficiently numerous and compact to form a majority in a single-member district", while the majority group must "votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it [..] usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate". (Thornburg v. Gingles) In other words, there must be a political bloc that (a) is not receiving any representation in the area and (b) would have representation with a majority-minority district. Letting them have that in no way gives them an advantage over the majority, whose preferred candidates will still control all the other districts. Why not apply this to political blocs that exist based on factors other than race – like plain old conservative versus liberal? Well, I think we should; again, I'd prefer proportional representation. But the current rule is enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which specifically calls out discrimination based on race – something that was a huge problem in 1965, and is still a problem today. Compared to other types of political blocs, racial ones are disproportionately excluded from the political system. And morally speaking, although being discriminated against due to your political beliefs is bad, being discriminated against due to your race is somewhat worse, because you can choose one but not the other.
macintux 7y ago
How about “they’re a minority with a long history of being enslaved, impoverished, disparaged, denied basic rights, denied access, denied the ballot box, denied representation, denied life itself”? Would that make any difference in your judgment on the matter? Although comex’s answer is, probably, more important.
Thorrez 7y ago
>There will always be a majority Not if there are more than 2 groups. There could easily be 3 minorities with 0 majorities.
memetomancer 7y ago
* The laws we are talking about are to mitigate abuse and oppression by a majority. * You seem especially vitriolic in defending the status quo. * The status quo is full of examples wherein a minority group is unfairly impacted. * You are even willing to make the claim that these protections are themselves racist and should not be attempted under any circumstances. I think most decent minded folks can see where this is leading.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  > You seem especially vitriolic in defending the status quo. I'm vitriolic towards any law that gives one group preferential treatment under the law. The entire premise of American democracy is majority rule within limits. The founding fathers already gave us ways to protect the minority's rights via the judicial system and the constitution. You cannot legislate status quo because it is derived from the sentiment of the population. If you want to change the sentiment you need to halt the division. You cannot pass a bill forcing black to love white, you can only pass bills that make the distinction irrelevant. > I think most decent-minded folks can see where this is leading. Hopefully to a world where people are judged by the content of their character and not by some physical attribute or thing they identify as.
  - memetomancer 7y ago
    as for "content of character", you have been presented with the mechanism of the oppression and still argue vehemently against remediation or protections. Juust so you are aware, this all extends far beyond questions of race, not sure why you are so focused on that, but it's probably pretty telling. Also, I'm not at all sure what you see as a distinction between these protections and "founding fathers already gave us ways to protect the minority's rights via the judicial system...". We are discussing implementation of that Founding Father Judicial system stuff in this thread, please expand on why you think it serves as an argument against modfying or creating laws to protect abused classes?
    - blackflame7000 7y ago