4 ms·

Yes, it's been going on for a while. Christians are fond if it: "You have an innate, direct relationship with God, in his eyes you are equal to the The King" e

Yes, it's been going on for a while. Christians are fond if it: "You have an innate, direct relationship with God, in his eyes you are equal to the The King" etc.. But we've only had 'governance' in the broad sense for 100 years. And we've never really tried to apply such principles into education until the 1960s. Now we have actually made incredible progress on social issues, we have our 'wars' in Social Media with Holy Anti Racism Fanatics trying to do their best - because 'racism is bad' - which of course it is - and 'systematic racism exists' - which of course it does - but the 'kernel of truth' of these issues drives people into ideological fervour as though it's some giant overwhelming issue, when really it's not. Racism is still pernicious, but it's not fundamental. And FYI don't think it's all rubbish. For example - 'Math' is heavily based on prerequisites. If you 'fall back' in Grade 4, you may never be able to 'catch up'. While that's true in general, it's not as acute as in math. Poor kids might be far more likely to 'fall of the bandwagon' and a lot of poverty might be due to systematic racism, and so the 'Hard Requirements' for certain things may not be ideal. You could have 'summer school' or 'after school' or 'accelerated catch up' programs. Those would be 'reasonable' solutions in my view - and FYI these are mostly issues of poverty, not race, they are couched as racial issues because that's what fires people up. Edit: and yes, I agree 'most people in the civil service' are level-headed. Most people actually are. But some groups have outsized voices, amplified by 'allies' elsewhere. The 'Anti Racism Agenda' is a 'fundamental pillar', like a religion, of 25% of the US population, and they are pretty active about it. And the actions of the most extreme 5% end up really upsetting other people. Much like a very powerful fool using made up constitutional manoeuvres to try to take over the government would upset a lot of people as well. Good intentions, surely, but that doesn't make them right.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>and 'systematic racism exists' - which of course it does Systematic racism only exists today to positively discriminate against people belonging to so-called disadvantaged races, at the expense of those belonging to so-called privileged races. That's why White and Asian kids are discriminated against in college admissions.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Oh yeah? Then why am I stuck paying a higher property tax rate than my white neighbors who inherited their house from their parents that purchased during an era of segregation?
  - zaroth 5y ago
    First of all, are we talking about “systematic” or “systemic” or “structural” racism. These terms are not interchangeable. Put that aside for a second… I assume your example is talking about Prop 58. [1] Is Prop 58 racist? Of course not, the CA Constitution prohibits racist and sexist laws and the courts are very good at enforcing that prohibition. Prop 58 means a lower property tax bill can be inherited by the children with the property. By your reasoning, isn’t allowing property inheritance at all racist? To me this is a meaningless injection of “equity” into a discussion on equality. Racism is not a word that means “inequity” - as in - everyone not consuming, producing, contributing, and owning the exact same quanta. That of course is a bizarre fiction. We are talking about a tax policy which generationally preserves a tax break. It had a meaningful basis in law and policy which does not discriminate based on race, but it certainly provides a significant tax benefit to generational land owners. Now again, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the Federal estate tax lifetime exclusion amount, which provides orders of magnitudes greater tax benefits to preserving generational wealth, so Prop 58 is just a bit player in this scheme. If the argument is that a tax policy which is advantageous to anyone with generational wealth is “systemically racist” then I think the argument has gone off the rails. There are important justifiable public policy goals to ensuring a certainly level of generational wealth. There is no and never will be an important justifiable public policy goal of being “racist”. If someone wants to argue for wealth confiscation, redistribution, and equity (e.g. some form of communism) then by all means give it a shot. But I don’t abide calling people racists if they disagree with that as a policy goal. If the argument is “merely” that there should be no tax benefit which preserves generational wealth, you actually immediately end up in exactly the same place. The answer is of course more likely along the lines of “we do both”. We have policies that provide for protecting and maintaining a certainly level of generational wealth. And we also have policies which provide a massive welfare system for people without any generational wealth. [1] - https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3706 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3706
thelock85 5y ago
>> Racism is still pernicious, but it's not fundamental. How did you reach this conclusion in the face of 300+ years of verifiable, well-documented federal, state and local racist legislation and policies? If it’s pernicious now then it’s always been pernicious since generations have persevered irregardless of these policies… but that doesn’t make sense to me.
- jollybean 4y ago
  Institutional racism really does not exist, and in general, people really are not racist. Obviously, subtleties exist, and there is work to do - but by and large, people are treated fairly in 2020, moreover, there are numerous 'affirmative action' programs in place to try to make up for the issues.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>and 'systematic racism exists' - which of course it does Systematic racism only exists today to positively discriminate against people belonging to so-called disadvantaged races, at the expense of those belonging to so-called privileged races. That's why White and Asian kids are discriminated against in college admissions.

ummonk 5y ago
Oh yeah? Then why am I stuck paying a higher property tax rate than my white neighbors who inherited their house from their parents that purchased during an era of segregation?
- zaroth 5y ago
  First of all, are we talking about “systematic” or “systemic” or “structural” racism. These terms are not interchangeable. Put that aside for a second… I assume your example is talking about Prop 58. [1] Is Prop 58 racist? Of course not, the CA Constitution prohibits racist and sexist laws and the courts are very good at enforcing that prohibition. Prop 58 means a lower property tax bill can be inherited by the children with the property. By your reasoning, isn’t allowing property inheritance at all racist? To me this is a meaningless injection of “equity” into a discussion on equality. Racism is not a word that means “inequity” - as in - everyone not consuming, producing, contributing, and owning the exact same quanta. That of course is a bizarre fiction. We are talking about a tax policy which generationally preserves a tax break. It had a meaningful basis in law and policy which does not discriminate based on race, but it certainly provides a significant tax benefit to generational land owners. Now again, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the Federal estate tax lifetime exclusion amount, which provides orders of magnitudes greater tax benefits to preserving generational wealth, so Prop 58 is just a bit player in this scheme. If the argument is that a tax policy which is advantageous to anyone with generational wealth is “systemically racist” then I think the argument has gone off the rails. There are important justifiable public policy goals to ensuring a certainly level of generational wealth. There is no and never will be an important justifiable public policy goal of being “racist”. If someone wants to argue for wealth confiscation, redistribution, and equity (e.g. some form of communism) then by all means give it a shot. But I don’t abide calling people racists if they disagree with that as a policy goal. If the argument is “merely” that there should be no tax benefit which preserves generational wealth, you actually immediately end up in exactly the same place. The answer is of course more likely along the lines of “we do both”. We have policies that provide for protecting and maintaining a certainly level of generational wealth. And we also have policies which provide a massive welfare system for people without any generational wealth. [1] - https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3706 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3706

thelock85 5y ago

>> Racism is still pernicious, but it's not fundamental. How did you reach this conclusion in the face of 300+ years of verifiable, well-documented federal, state and local racist legislation and policies? If it’s pernicious now then it’s always been pernicious since generations have persevered irregardless of these policies… but that doesn’t make sense to me.

jollybean 4y ago
Institutional racism really does not exist, and in general, people really are not racist. Obviously, subtleties exist, and there is work to do - but by and large, people are treated fairly in 2020, moreover, there are numerous 'affirmative action' programs in place to try to make up for the issues.