4 ms·

> I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Fortunately for people of color,

> I don't think racial discrimination is the right term for discriminating based on things that happen to correlate with race. Fortunately for people of color, it is. You don't have to say you're discriminating based on race in order to be doing so, and the law acknowledges this. That is how gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination. We do actually get to look at reality when we are deciding if an act is racist.

cataphract 3y ago
Well, depends on the day. See the Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim ban case). In this case Trump did say he wanted to ban muslims, but it didn't even matter.
- tick_tock_tick 3y ago
  I mean why would it? The law explicitly stated he's allowed to ban immigration and travel of non USA persons based on whatever he feels like. Non USA persons don't get the same rights especially around entering the USA.
- rayiner 3y ago
  That’s funny because Trump v. Hawaii proves the opposite. Obama was the one who identified those specific countries. They just happened to all be Muslim. Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, but did so by using a list of countries that Obama had generated based on presumably non-racist reasons.
belorn 3y ago
gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of intention of racial discrimination. Correlation and intent are two very different concepts, and it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent.
- digging 3y ago
  > it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent. Yes but it is much more dangerous to assume that correlation can't imply intent. Because sometimes it does.
  - belorn 3y ago
    Indeed. Once a situation is suspected to be done by criminal intent, investigators can interview personal, go through search histories, looking for text conversations and so on. Once collected a judge can look at it and determine if there is or isn't intent. It is a costly, time consuming and cumbersome process, but the legal system is quite used to it since almost every single criminal case involve some aspects of establishing intent.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination Under current interpretation of civil rights laws, district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination if they are not sufficiently gerrymandered.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  I assume you’re referring to section 2 of the voting rights act? If so, I find that a pretty disingenuous framing. Can you point to an example of what you would consider to be a fair map getting struck down because of a VRA violation? Since it’s the most recent high visibility VRA districting case, let me just say from the outset, the SCOTUS case involving the AL congressional map is most definitely not such an example.
rayiner 3y ago
[flagged]

cataphract 3y ago

Well, depends on the day. See the Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim ban case). In this case Trump did say he wanted to ban muslims, but it didn't even matter.

tick_tock_tick 3y ago
I mean why would it? The law explicitly stated he's allowed to ban immigration and travel of non USA persons based on whatever he feels like. Non USA persons don't get the same rights especially around entering the USA.
rayiner 3y ago
That’s funny because Trump v. Hawaii proves the opposite. Obama was the one who identified those specific countries. They just happened to all be Muslim. Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims, but did so by using a list of countries that Obama had generated based on presumably non-racist reasons.

belorn 3y ago

gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of intention of racial discrimination. Correlation and intent are two very different concepts, and it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent.

digging 3y ago
> it is very dangerous to assume that everything that correlates do so by intent. Yes but it is much more dangerous to assume that correlation can't imply intent. Because sometimes it does.
- belorn 3y ago
  Indeed. Once a situation is suspected to be done by criminal intent, investigators can interview personal, go through search histories, looking for text conversations and so on. Once collected a judge can look at it and determine if there is or isn't intent. It is a costly, time consuming and cumbersome process, but the legal system is quite used to it since almost every single criminal case involve some aspects of establishing intent.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> gerrymandered district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination Under current interpretation of civil rights laws, district maps can get struck down on the basis of racial discrimination if they are not sufficiently gerrymandered.

bandyaboot 3y ago
I assume you’re referring to section 2 of the voting rights act? If so, I find that a pretty disingenuous framing. Can you point to an example of what you would consider to be a fair map getting struck down because of a VRA violation? Since it’s the most recent high visibility VRA districting case, let me just say from the outset, the SCOTUS case involving the AL congressional map is most definitely not such an example.

rayiner 3y ago

[flagged]