5 ms·

Following the implications of this argument leads to some pretty hairy places. If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc posi

Following the implications of this argument leads to some pretty hairy places. If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? Or perhaps the argument implies that people like that constitutional scholar have reached a state of purely detached enlightenment, and thus are exempt from this logic?

datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
You misunderstand, or I didn’t explain it well, because you’re making the same argument that the constitutional scholar is making against originalists. By narrowly interpreting the text exactly as a WL18CWM would have interpreted it (e.g. black people are not people), they’re not leaving room for interpretations of the constitution that would provide equal rights to people who are not WL18CWM: - The constitution grants rights - The authors have a bias (WL18CWM) - Originalists essentially ignore this bias, leading to fewer or restricted rights to people who are less similar to WL18CWM
coldtea 3mo ago
>If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? An entirely fair law might not be possible, at least as long as people with specific class/race/gender interests overwhelmingly influence it. But a somewhat fair law or a law fairer than another, is. And, at least as I understand it, the scholar doesn't say that nobody is ever "capable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position" in general. Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it.
- rayiner 3mo ago
  > Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it. They were exceedingly good at it. In my country’s constitution we have all sorts of things from the american constitution, like due process, because we literally have no indigenous words for these concepts.
  - coldtea 3mo ago
    And some other country might be liking those Founding Fathers concepts' even more. So? Doesn't change the fact that they weren't very good with not letting class/race/gender/etc position influence their policy making. And that's the claim we're discussing whether they've been good at, not whether they came up with some good new concepts like "due process" and "the right to free speech". They had "due process" but they also had slavery. They had "equal rights" and voting but not for poor not land-owning plebes or women. They had "free speech" but also McCarthyism. Their constitution didn't prevent laws describing how e.g. blacks can't sleep in the same hotels or go to the same schools as whites to be applied and be considered compatible with it. And didn't prevent a globally huge per capita prison system, primarily targeting blacks, even today.
    - rayiner 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
        What’s the endgame of your argument here? It reeks of American exceptionalism of the type where its citizenry is not allowed to critically assess the effectiveness of its systems because other systems are somehow worse in some facets. This entire response is whataboutism. Should disenfranchised Americans simply roll over because there are people more disenfranchised in other places in the world? Are some forms of disenfranchisement more acceptable than others? E.g. as long as we can narrowly interpret the words of the founding fathers (originalism) to be in favor of it?
      - TimorousBestie 3mo ago
        Your second paragraph does not make the argument you seem to intend. Most other places in the world did not require an incredibly bloody civil war in order to (partially) abolish slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave... > Those cultures didn’t think slavery was wrong. Southern antebellum culture was so beyond the pale it not only “didn’t think slavery was wrong,” it thought slavery was so good and so fundamental to its way of life that “mass fratricide,” as you put it, was preferable to abolition. Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407005
- datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
  Also there’s the difference between intention and interpretation. The authors may have been extremely well-intentioned with regards to the fairness of their laws by writing broadly, but interpreting their writing narrowly robs the authors of their intentions. Ironically, originalists may be less fair than the original authors.
harimau777 3mo ago
A reasonable initial place to draw the line might be "owns slaves".

datsci_est_2015 3mo ago

You misunderstand, or I didn’t explain it well, because you’re making the same argument that the constitutional scholar is making against originalists. By narrowly interpreting the text exactly as a WL18CWM would have interpreted it (e.g. black people are not people), they’re not leaving room for interpretations of the constitution that would provide equal rights to people who are not WL18CWM: - The constitution grants rights - The authors have a bias (WL18CWM) - Originalists essentially ignore this bias, leading to fewer or restricted rights to people who are less similar to WL18CWM

coldtea 3mo ago

>If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? An entirely fair law might not be possible, at least as long as people with specific class/race/gender interests overwhelmingly influence it. But a somewhat fair law or a law fairer than another, is. And, at least as I understand it, the scholar doesn't say that nobody is ever "capable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position" in general. Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it.

rayiner 3mo ago
> Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it. They were exceedingly good at it. In my country’s constitution we have all sorts of things from the american constitution, like due process, because we literally have no indigenous words for these concepts.
- coldtea 3mo ago
  And some other country might be liking those Founding Fathers concepts' even more. So? Doesn't change the fact that they weren't very good with not letting class/race/gender/etc position influence their policy making. And that's the claim we're discussing whether they've been good at, not whether they came up with some good new concepts like "due process" and "the right to free speech". They had "due process" but they also had slavery. They had "equal rights" and voting but not for poor not land-owning plebes or women. They had "free speech" but also McCarthyism. Their constitution didn't prevent laws describing how e.g. blacks can't sleep in the same hotels or go to the same schools as whites to be applied and be considered compatible with it. And didn't prevent a globally huge per capita prison system, primarily targeting blacks, even today.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
      What’s the endgame of your argument here? It reeks of American exceptionalism of the type where its citizenry is not allowed to critically assess the effectiveness of its systems because other systems are somehow worse in some facets. This entire response is whataboutism. Should disenfranchised Americans simply roll over because there are people more disenfranchised in other places in the world? Are some forms of disenfranchisement more acceptable than others? E.g. as long as we can narrowly interpret the words of the founding fathers (originalism) to be in favor of it?
    - TimorousBestie 3mo ago
      Your second paragraph does not make the argument you seem to intend. Most other places in the world did not require an incredibly bloody civil war in order to (partially) abolish slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave... > Those cultures didn’t think slavery was wrong. Southern antebellum culture was so beyond the pale it not only “didn’t think slavery was wrong,” it thought slavery was so good and so fundamental to its way of life that “mass fratricide,” as you put it, was preferable to abolition. Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407005
datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
Also there’s the difference between intention and interpretation. The authors may have been extremely well-intentioned with regards to the fairness of their laws by writing broadly, but interpreting their writing narrowly robs the authors of their intentions. Ironically, originalists may be less fair than the original authors.

harimau777 3mo ago

A reasonable initial place to draw the line might be "owns slaves".