7 ms·

> Restructuring the Democratic Party around graduate-school level race theory was an excellent way to destroy its ability to advocate for the working class. At

> Restructuring the Democratic Party around graduate-school level race theory was an excellent way to destroy its ability to advocate for the working class. At best, working class white people don't get the rhetoric. > At worst, they correctly perceive that it's not in their interest to support Democratic policies that redistribute opportunities along racial lines This is only a correct perception if they decide to make it a fight. There is nothing that implicitly prevents a big tent dem party from both advocating for working class and minority beneficial policies. It's only zero sum because people like you claim it's zero sum and create the perception that it is so. Don't do that, and push back against others that do that, and the problem goes away. >Such policies deliberately avoid redistribution across class lines. No they don't (I mean even ignoring the extent that redistribution along racial lines usually correlates with class lines pretty well), there isn't anything that prevents you from doing both. It only costs political capital when you make it a fight. If everyone in the dem party were like me, doing both wouldn't cost any political capital! If you believe that such policies are bad, say that. If you think such policies are good, support them! Don't do this half-hearted thing where you just claim the policies are electorally untenable. That's self-fulfilling because saying it's zero sum drives the perception that it is so.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
> It's only zero sum because people like you claim it's zero sum and create the perception that it is so It is by definition zero sum. There are a fixed number of college acceptance spots at prestigious colleges each year and by the nature of prestige it must stay so for the colleges to continue being prestigious. There are (roughly) a fixed number of jobs in prestigious fields. There are a fixed number of C level positions in Fortune 500 companies. When you deliberately reallocate these spots on the basis of skin color instead of merit, you doom the nation to eventual failure as it's outcompeted by nations like China. Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes, and not substantially raising LT capital gains taxes. Not only that, but you can still deduct huge amounts for real estate ownership and business ownership.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  No one was talking about allocating headcount. > Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. This begs the question. > You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes. Sanders and Warren both advocate for wealth taxes, and have higher support among the college educated cadre of the dem party!
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. That means DEI programs and affirmative action to favor minorities, because that's what's being pushed by the left right now. Those policies do affect headcount and college admissions and are zero sum. I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes and promotions. Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-fi... [2] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-settles-hiring-pay-bias-claims-for-over-5-000-workers https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-sett...
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      > You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. Correct. > That means DEI programs Let me know where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies. We were discussing a particular minority aware funding program. You decided to bring up headcount, something no one else was discussing. > I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes Sure, yes, this is fine. > and promotions. Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. > Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. You should really read those links better. Your first showed that a particular crosstab of engineers (that I belonged to, in fact!) were being systemically underpaid (by, if I recall, something like .25%). Your second link notes that Google settled both against Asian applicants, and against female applicants and employees. So, Google was, per your own source, systematically underpaying women (by a larger margin over a larger period) and their internal study failed to recognize that, and instead gave me a small bonus.
rayiner 4y ago
"My strategy would work if voters all adopted my values and worldview" isn't a sensible political strategy. It's utopianism. Politics is about putting together a coalition with the voters you have, not daydreaming about what you could do if you had the voters you want. And the utopianism harms the very minorities you claim to advocate for. My parents, immigrants from Bangladesh, don't vote straight-ticket Democrat because they think you can achieve racial harmony. They do it because they think Obamacare is a good idea. You're not going to convince them that Bangladeshis have common cause with other minorities, or that police are bad, or that same-sex marriage is great, or that anyone should ever "celebrate their abortion." They will go along with those things, but they're voting for a political party to achieve tangible results, not bring about the Rapture.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  It would be interesting to ask your parents if their experience with the personality cult of Mujib led them to vote that way here.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    My mom is from a wealthy family and mainly votes democrat because she views Republicans as the party of religious “common people” and democrats as the party of the educated elite. She agrees with Trump about a lot of things, but hates him because “he talks like an uneducated person.” My dad dad is more of a traditional Carter Democrat. He likes big government and Obamacare and rule by law expert administrators. He dislikes Republicans for their Nixon/Reagan/Bush era foreign policy (especially Nixon’s support of Pakistan against Bangladesh). He’s slowly coming to terms with the fact that although he hates Trump, he agrees with Trump on a bunch of things (pro-Russia, anti-accepting Afghan refugees, etc.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ceeplusplus 4y ago

> It's only zero sum because people like you claim it's zero sum and create the perception that it is so It is by definition zero sum. There are a fixed number of college acceptance spots at prestigious colleges each year and by the nature of prestige it must stay so for the colleges to continue being prestigious. There are (roughly) a fixed number of jobs in prestigious fields. There are a fixed number of C level positions in Fortune 500 companies. When you deliberately reallocate these spots on the basis of skin color instead of merit, you doom the nation to eventual failure as it's outcompeted by nations like China. Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes, and not substantially raising LT capital gains taxes. Not only that, but you can still deduct huge amounts for real estate ownership and business ownership.

joshuamorton 4y ago
No one was talking about allocating headcount. > Science does not care about your skin color, it only cares that you're right. This begs the question. > You might notice that current Democratic policies only advocate for raising income taxes. Sanders and Warren both advocate for wealth taxes, and have higher support among the college educated cadre of the dem party!
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. That means DEI programs and affirmative action to favor minorities, because that's what's being pushed by the left right now. Those policies do affect headcount and college admissions and are zero sum. I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes and promotions. Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-fi... [2] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-settles-hiring-pay-bias-claims-for-over-5-000-workers https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/google-sett...
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > You brought up "minority beneficial policies" in the context of the current left wing segment of the Democratic party. Correct. > That means DEI programs Let me know where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies. We were discussing a particular minority aware funding program. You decided to bring up headcount, something no one else was discussing. > I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes Sure, yes, this is fine. > and promotions. Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though. > Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2]. You should really read those links better. Your first showed that a particular crosstab of engineers (that I belonged to, in fact!) were being systemically underpaid (by, if I recall, something like .25%). Your second link notes that Google settled both against Asian applicants, and against female applicants and employees. So, Google was, per your own source, systematically underpaying women (by a larger margin over a larger period) and their internal study failed to recognize that, and instead gave me a small bonus.

rayiner 4y ago

"My strategy would work if voters all adopted my values and worldview" isn't a sensible political strategy. It's utopianism. Politics is about putting together a coalition with the voters you have, not daydreaming about what you could do if you had the voters you want. And the utopianism harms the very minorities you claim to advocate for. My parents, immigrants from Bangladesh, don't vote straight-ticket Democrat because they think you can achieve racial harmony. They do it because they think Obamacare is a good idea. You're not going to convince them that Bangladeshis have common cause with other minorities, or that police are bad, or that same-sex marriage is great, or that anyone should ever "celebrate their abortion." They will go along with those things, but they're voting for a political party to achieve tangible results, not bring about the Rapture.

selimthegrim 4y ago
It would be interesting to ask your parents if their experience with the personality cult of Mujib led them to vote that way here.
- rayiner 4y ago
  My mom is from a wealthy family and mainly votes democrat because she views Republicans as the party of religious “common people” and democrats as the party of the educated elite. She agrees with Trump about a lot of things, but hates him because “he talks like an uneducated person.” My dad dad is more of a traditional Carter Democrat. He likes big government and Obamacare and rule by law expert administrators. He dislikes Republicans for their Nixon/Reagan/Bush era foreign policy (especially Nixon’s support of Pakistan against Bangladesh). He’s slowly coming to terms with the fact that although he hates Trump, he agrees with Trump on a bunch of things (pro-Russia, anti-accepting Afghan refugees, etc.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]