1706

So saying that say white hiring managers are racially biased is just reporting a statistical correlation, but saying X particular white hiring manager might be biased against a particular applicant because of race is racist? I’m sorry, I am having a hard time understanding this distinction.

1707

Yes. And it’s not that hard to understand, either. There are a lot of factors that determine whether a particular hiring manager is racist, of which the hiring manager’s race is only one.

To take another example, most serial killers are male. That’s a fact. But to conclude that Judge Curiel is a serial killer because he is male would be sheer ignorance. To suggest that he can’t preside over Trump’s case because of his increased likelihood of being a serial killer would also be ignorant. Nobody would accept it.

Racism is exactly the same kind of ignorance, only some people are willing to accept it.

1708

BTW, here’s a really useful spreadsheet for comparing 2012/2016:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

Number of votes up almost everywhere, sometimes by double digits. Down by 1% in a couple of states. And then a bunch of states with big drops:

  • Utah -11% (for obvious reasons)
  • Mississippi -10% (the other obvious reason)
  • California -25% / Washington -8.5% / Alaska -15% (still counting, no reason to believe they won’t reach at least 2012 numbers. Still counting in Arizona too, but they’re already up from last time despite that.)
  • Ohio -4.6%, Wisconsin -4.0% (WTF? Comparing to similar states, the only explanation I have is the new voting restrictions; but 4% seems like an enormous effect from those.)
1709

You keep moving the goalposts. If that was the definition of racism, then a movie director rejecting a white actor who wants to play Martin Luther King is racist.

I think, and you previously agreed, that racism requires a negative judgement regarding somebody’s worth as a person.

First of all, a judge recusing himself from a case implies no moral judgement on his ability to perform his duty. It would be perfectly normal if a close relative was involved. That’s one of the possible interpretations Trump was going for: The ties of blood matter. They determine who we are. If I was in a feud with his first cousin, the judge would recuse himself. Probably, too, if it was his first cousin once removed. What if it was his first cousin twice removed? But I am in a feud with many Mexicans. By consanguinity, they might all be far removed from the judge. But they are all closer to him than they are to me. If roles were reversed, I would be biased against him, therefore I suspect him to be biased now.

One thing you don’t give enough credit for is how carefully all of Trump’s statement in this brilliant campaign were designed to be ambiguous. They can be understood in a radical or immoral way – that reels in the radicals, who assume everyone speaks in codes anyway. But they can also be understood in a trivial, harmless way – common people, who are unaccustomed with the culture wars, take the words as they would in a conversation. Trump’s enemies choose the most offensive interpretation, and suddenly the people in the middle have to defend the trivial interpretation, and thereby Trump, against the culture warriors. That’s how he mobilizes them.

1710

Oh come on. That’s like saying it’s sexist for Playboy not to hire dudes as centerfolds. Law is not an occupation where physical attributes have any bearing on the work to be done. The analogy fails on its face.

1711

So Trump was not actually saying racist things, he was just making a calculated effort to appear racist to certain audiences? I think that is a distinction without a difference.

Ambiguity in racist discourse normally isn’t calculated, it’s habitual. People end up shocked when their habitual level of “ambiguity” bumps up against the different level acceptable in other discourse communities. “I didn’t mean anything racist when I said Michelle Obama is an ape.” Some people will accept that, thinking that there was a reasonable level of ambiguity in those comments.

I choose to think that Trump’s racist language wasn’t calculated. He used his habitual level of ambiguity, and it was one his audiences identified with so he felt no reason to turn it down, the way most national politicians do. A calculated racist appeal would be much more evil, the kind of shit Ann Coulter and Breitbart pull routinely. Oh, wait…

1712

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a fucking duck - even if the duck happens to be running for president.

Come to think of it, I think I’d have preferred a duck run for president.

1713

Um… that isn’t remotely the same thing. It’s not even on the same planet.

1714

The election really made some people crawl out from under the rock.

[quote]Pamela Ramsey Taylor, who runs a local non-profit group in Clay County, referred to the first lady as an “ape”.

“It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I’m tired of seeing a Ape in heels,” she said.

Local mayor Beverly Whaling responded with “just made my day Pam”.[/quote]

Ah… yes.

1715

Yeah, I’m getting tired of all this. Timex is right that acceptance if not over support support for a bigot means you have to be a bigot in some measure (since you don’t care or place importance enough in that bigotry, and in this case is pretty damn important).

But at least I can understand that reasoning (I’m not supporting the bigot statements but the other ones) even if I disagree with it.

But this… This is saying racism is bad, thus what I do is not racism, no matter how similar to racism it looks. It’s bonkers.

1716

so, uh…

My younger brother has been completely freaking out about Trump winning (as we all have - including the old folks I volunteer for WHO VOTED FOR HIM - but I digress). I sent him an email Friday night trying to calm him down with stuff like how the D House and Senate gained seats, and how many state props went liberal, etc. One of the things I brought up was that a lot more Iraqi vets are in Congress now, and I mentioned Tulsi Gabbard and Tammy Duckworth by name as examples.

Today, I got an email from Tammy Duckworth’s campaign. Thanking me for my support. I never donated to her campaign, or liked her on FB, or even mentioned her other than that one email. I’ve barely been thanked even by politicians I have given to. Bizarre coincidence or is it time to splash my gmail account and get fitted for a tinfoil hat?

1717

Maybe somebody donated to one of them in your name? They’re certainly not sophisticated enough to be trolling through your email, nor would they if they could. Maybe it’s a phishing scam?

1718

And if I were suing a white guy, then a white male judge should recuse himself. Because “consanguinity”. That’s your ridiculous argument in a nutshell.

In fact, even if you had a ten year history of specifically insulting a particular judge, that judge would not be expected to recuse herself if selected to hear your case. That’s just your bad karma. And the reason is obvious: you can’t give litigants or their counsel an effective veto over who will hear their cases, because they would naturally use this to steer particular judges their way. Soon enough, every third Facebook post would be yet another insult by some random lawyer against some random judge, and no judge would be qualified to hear any case at all.

Judges recuse themselves when their responses betray their objectivity, not when other people goad them or otherwise behave as buffoons.

1719

I didn’t move the goalposts at all, and to be clear, the two things you said here are incorrect:

  1. Requiring that an actor physically resemble a real person in a historical non-fiction piece is not even remotely the same here, because you are trying to match up actual physical attributes.
  2. Racism actually doesn’t require negative judgement at all, I’m not sure what exactly you believe I said that agreed to that. For instance, if you believe that “Asian people are good at math”, that’s also generally considered racist. Potentially non-harmful to the recipient, but still essentially a form of bigotry as you are defining that person by their race and removing some degree of individuality from them.

Ok, just so we’re clear, do you in fact understand that your argument here is already established as totally wrong? I mean, within the scope of legal precedent. Indeed, if you were a lawyer, and tried to make such an argument, you would be legally sanctioned by the court.

I just want to make sure you’re aware of the history of this argument.

1720

I mean, we’ve covered this, though I guess it was a while ago.

[quote]So Trump’s argument that a “Mexican” can’t hear is case is bogus?

Beyond the shadow of a doubt based on a century of law. Many courts have considered and rejected the argument that a judge of a particular ethnicity, gender, or religion is inherently biased because of the nature of the case. In fact, the argument has been so repeatedly and thoroughly rejected that it’s sanctionable to make it.[/quote]
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/138/138.F3d.33.97-7193.html
(link to said sanctions)

[quote]But can’t judge Curiel’s impartiality be reasonably questioned now that Trump has repeatedly attacked him?

No. It’s extremely well established — as well-established as anything in federal law — that you can’t judge-shop by being a douche. A party’s insults, criticisms, and even threats are not a valid basis for recusal. Otherwise you could judge-shop by attacking judges until you found one you liked.[/quote]

Using Nezz’s logic, all non-white people could have their cases thrown out if a white person was the judge. Because white people oppress you. Sound stupid? It is, but it’s also the same exact logic.

1721

Why are THEY freaking out?

1722

If I had to guess it would be SS and Medicare, which people like Paul Ryan are salivating about tearing apart since Trump seems happy to just let them do everything.

1723

I’m guessing they didn’t follow Brexit and are learning the same lesson?

1724

I’d say they deserve it… but that doesn’t mean I want it to happen.

1725

Hey remember how our media is fucking useless?

Edit: Then again… why would I trust anything out of the Trump camp? Hmmm…