46 ms·

No, but seriously, they're doing this stuff in such a sloppy way that I'd definitely be looking for opportunity, e.g. the wording of one of their anti-CRT thing

by jrm4 4y ago

No, but seriously, they're doing this stuff in such a sloppy way that I'd definitely be looking for opportunity, e.g. the wording of one of their anti-CRT things essentially said "no one can make someone else uncomfortable about race" and I'm like "word? I can work with that."

colinmhayes 4y ago
Right, but the enforcement is actually "no one can make anyone else uncomfortable about being white"
tialaramex 4y ago
The thing is, just because it seems as though if the nonsense rules were enforced impartially they'd look like fools doesn't help you because they'll be the ones deciding how the rules are to be enforced. If you explain "literacy test" voting laws prior to the US Voting Rights Act without that sort of context people imagine well, you send one smart black teacher, they do a few lessons, next year every black person in the town can vote, while presumably many poor white folks can't right? But that's not how it works, in practice the "test" is whether you're white or not. If you're white you "pass" and if you're black you "don't pass", and if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident".
- zrail 4y ago
  > if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident" Lynchings are never this circumspect.
  - wahern 4y ago
    In retrospect, no. But reality was never so clear cut, especially contemporaneously. Lynchings of whites wasn't uncommon. The so-called "last lynching in California" was of two white murder suspects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmond_and_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmo... The application of lynchings were, however, disproportionate, and this must have at least been apparent to anyone who cared to consider the question. According to Wikipedia, between 1883 and 1941, "3,265 were black, 1,082 were white." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Accounts of lynchings also emphasize the treatment of black bodies as evidence of disdain. But even lynchings of white victims often involved mutilation and the taking of "souvenirs", as in the aforementioned lynching. Again, no doubt this was disproportionate, but even the most obvious sorts of discrimination aren't as "black & white" as popular narratives would have you believe. (NB: I'm not challenging the idea or existence of disdain regarding black bodies.) I think these finer distinctions matter because they're fundamental to understanding the concept of systemic racism--arguably, there really is no other kind but systemic racism. To sell the idea of systemic racism, we tend to shape historical narratives to better fit how people conceive of racism. But taking that license can be counter-productive as it then makes it easier to refute or justify claims of racism, or the very notion of racism, particularly for those so inclined.
    - aaronbrethorst 4y ago
      Those numbers don't take into account the percentage of the total US population that was Black and white from 1883-1941. In 1880 and 1940, respectively, 13.1% and 9.8% of people in the United States were identified as Black. The Wikipedia article below only offers the white population number for 1940, but that is reported as being 88.4% of the US population. Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790–2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
      - erichocean 4y ago
        > Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. Now do per-capita murder rates today, I think you'll find the same disparity. The fact is, lynching of whites and blacks (usually for murder) were inline with "likelihood to commit that crime" based on having virtually identical per-capita murder rates today. Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. No one wants vigilante justice (then or now), but we shouldn't be too surprised that communities police themselves when the government can't (or won't).
        magicalist 4y ago
        > Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. Jesus Christ I thought this thread was bad but then we get to this post.
        DuskStar 4y ago
        It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again. It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Right, but I'm talking about today. Meaning that I have more faith that malicious (righteous, really) compliance with rules thing this can have good outcomes, especially in the "sunshine."
paxys 4y ago
You are assuming any such laws will be enforced fairly, which is very far from the case.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
- aaronbrethorst 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit
  - skywal_l 4y ago
    In this article, one can read about the parent's quote: > is often credited to Francis M. Wilhoit, who died in 2010, it was actually written in 2018 by a different Frank Wilhoit, a composer.[10] :) And in this article: https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservative... > But in fact it’s the work of another Frank Wilhoit, this one not a professional scholar of American politics but a 63-year-old classical music composer in Ohio, who wrote the adage as part of a longer point in the comments section of the political science blog Crooked Timber [0]. [0]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
- somenameforme 4y ago
  I don't get the point of being divisive on that. That quote is literally just describing corruption, which is present in all governments, though especially those in decline. Ideology has literally 0 relevance there. The past 2 years have had countless examples of such from people all across the political spectrum, and all across the world for that matter. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
  - lazyeye 4y ago
    Agreed. You really have to have the ideological blinkers on not to see that this proposition applies equally to whoever has the power.

by jrm4 4y ago

colinmhayes 4y ago

Right, but the enforcement is actually "no one can make anyone else uncomfortable about being white"

tialaramex 4y ago

The thing is, just because it seems as though if the nonsense rules were enforced impartially they'd look like fools doesn't help you because they'll be the ones deciding how the rules are to be enforced. If you explain "literacy test" voting laws prior to the US Voting Rights Act without that sort of context people imagine well, you send one smart black teacher, they do a few lessons, next year every black person in the town can vote, while presumably many poor white folks can't right? But that's not how it works, in practice the "test" is whether you're white or not. If you're white you "pass" and if you're black you "don't pass", and if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident".

zrail 4y ago
> if you complain about this loudly enough well, maybe you have an unlucky "accident" Lynchings are never this circumspect.
- wahern 4y ago
  In retrospect, no. But reality was never so clear cut, especially contemporaneously. Lynchings of whites wasn't uncommon. The so-called "last lynching in California" was of two white murder suspects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmond_and_Holmes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Hart#Lynching_of_Thurmo... The application of lynchings were, however, disproportionate, and this must have at least been apparent to anyone who cared to consider the question. According to Wikipedia, between 1883 and 1941, "3,265 were black, 1,082 were white." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States Accounts of lynchings also emphasize the treatment of black bodies as evidence of disdain. But even lynchings of white victims often involved mutilation and the taking of "souvenirs", as in the aforementioned lynching. Again, no doubt this was disproportionate, but even the most obvious sorts of discrimination aren't as "black & white" as popular narratives would have you believe. (NB: I'm not challenging the idea or existence of disdain regarding black bodies.) I think these finer distinctions matter because they're fundamental to understanding the concept of systemic racism--arguably, there really is no other kind but systemic racism. To sell the idea of systemic racism, we tend to shape historical narratives to better fit how people conceive of racism. But taking that license can be counter-productive as it then makes it easier to refute or justify claims of racism, or the very notion of racism, particularly for those so inclined.
  - aaronbrethorst 4y ago
    Those numbers don't take into account the percentage of the total US population that was Black and white from 1883-1941. In 1880 and 1940, respectively, 13.1% and 9.8% of people in the United States were identified as Black. The Wikipedia article below only offers the white population number for 1940, but that is reported as being 88.4% of the US population. Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Black_population_as_a_percentage_of_the_total_population_by_U.S._region_and_state_(1790–2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
    - erichocean 4y ago
      > Despite the wildly disproportionate population sizes, more than three times the number of Black people were lynched compared to white people. Now do per-capita murder rates today, I think you'll find the same disparity. The fact is, lynching of whites and blacks (usually for murder) were inline with "likelihood to commit that crime" based on having virtually identical per-capita murder rates today. Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. No one wants vigilante justice (then or now), but we shouldn't be too surprised that communities police themselves when the government can't (or won't).
      - magicalist 4y ago
        > Lynchings occurred in the past primarily because the law didn't function effectively. Jesus Christ I thought this thread was bad but then we get to this post.
        DuskStar 4y ago
        It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again. It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.
jrm4 4y ago
Right, but I'm talking about today. Meaning that I have more faith that malicious (righteous, really) compliance with rules thing this can have good outcomes, especially in the "sunshine."

paxys 4y ago

You are assuming any such laws will be enforced fairly, which is very far from the case.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

aaronbrethorst 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_M._Wilhoit
- skywal_l 4y ago
  In this article, one can read about the parent's quote: > is often credited to Francis M. Wilhoit, who died in 2010, it was actually written in 2018 by a different Frank Wilhoit, a composer.[10] :) And in this article: https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservative... > But in fact it’s the work of another Frank Wilhoit, this one not a professional scholar of American politics but a 63-year-old classical music composer in Ohio, who wrote the adage as part of a longer point in the comments section of the political science blog Crooked Timber [0]. [0]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
somenameforme 4y ago
I don't get the point of being divisive on that. That quote is literally just describing corruption, which is present in all governments, though especially those in decline. Ideology has literally 0 relevance there. The past 2 years have had countless examples of such from people all across the political spectrum, and all across the world for that matter. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
- lazyeye 4y ago
  Agreed. You really have to have the ideological blinkers on not to see that this proposition applies equally to whoever has the power.