Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Belz...]

I still get carded occasionally as an ego boost. It doesn't make the law different for someone based on race does it? Neither does voting, or requiring ID for it. We require ID for much less important activities in this country, and we should absolutely require it for one of the most important activities in this country. If you feel like it's too much to ask, don't vote.

Why do you keep ignoring posts that point out that laws can affect minorities disproportionately and deliberately?

 

[River]

All my kids have ID which has their home address on it. Thing is, they attend school elsewhere during semesters. They could all have their voting eligibility challenged under Republican voting ID restrictions if they didn't respond to a mass mailing, which they might not get in time.

They would still be eligible to vote where their residence is. Where are they claiming residence? (their address) That is where they are eligible to vote. If they have lived in a different area for the regulated time, they must change their residence.

Why is that hard to understand? The rules are the same for everyone.

 

[River]

Why do you keep ignoring posts that point out that laws can affect minorities disproportionately and deliberately?

Because you're implying its because of their race. Not because of their economical or social advantages or disadvantages. Which one is racist?

 

[JoeMorgue]

They would still be eligible to vote where their residence is. Where are they claiming residence? (their address) That is where they are eligible to vote. If they have lived in a different area for the regulated time, they must change their residence.

Why is that hard to understand? The rules are the same for everyone.

This is like saying that if marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, then that means the rules for marriage are same for straight men and gay men because they can both marry women.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Entirely false. The entire concept is performance based?

If one worker sells 8 apples, and another sells 30 (both put in the same amount of work and sales calls) in the same time period who gets paid more? Which one profits the business more?

If the owner of the business employs 100 people per business, and owns 10 businesses, should he make the same amount as the person selling the apples for his company?

Your concept of meritocracy is broken....

it is YOUR system that you don't want to actually plan out, since it makes no sense at all.

I don't have a concept of meritocracy, since it is obvious that Merit is a useless term.

 

[Belz...]

Because you're implying its because of their race.

And?

Does the existence of racism scare you out of your wits?

Not because of their economical or social advantages or disadvantages. Which one is racist?

Depends. Do you know from whence these disadvantages come?

 

[Belz...]

This is like saying that if marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, then that means the rules for marriage are same for straight men and gay men because they can both marry women.

I'm so glad this place has people who can explain this stuff more clearly than I can.

 

[TomB]

Because you're implying its because of their race. Not because of their economical or social advantages or disadvantages. Which one is racist?

One more time...

If there is a statistical correlation between Characteristic A and Characteristic B, anything that affects those with Characteristic A will, by extension, affect those with Characteristic B to the extent of that correlation. This is true even if there is no causal relationship between the two characteristics.

So, if I want to reduce the number of black or Hispanic people that vote, I would first look at the characteristics of those populations and notice that they are more likely to be poor than white people. So if I institute a policy that makes it harder for poor people to vote, I am affecting more black/Hispanic people than white people.

This accomplishes my goal. Sure some white people are affected, but that's acceptable because significantly more black people are affected. As a bonus, because I don't directly target the minorities, I can argue that I'm not targeting race.

It's similar to how chemotherapy works. Chemotherapy is essentially giving the patient poison. That poison, however, is more lethal to hypoxic cells. It doesn't target cancer, it targets cells with low oxygen levels. Tumors tend to be hypoxic as you have an overgrown mass of cells with inadequate blood supply to deliver oxygen. So the doctors give the patient a poison that is more likely to affect cancer cells, though it will also affect some healthy cells, which is why chemo makes people sick. The hope is to kill the cancer before killing the patient.

Voter registration laws can do the same thing. Just substitute minorities for cancer cells, white people for healthy cells and poverty for hypoxic.

(Note: I'm remembering from my Radiation Biology class 28 years ago, so details may not be perfect. Might be conflating hypoxic with something else, but the point stands.)

I'm not against voter ID laws as long as they are accompanied by an effort to provide the required IDs to everyone who wants one with minimal effort.

 

[Belz...]

Just substitute minorities for cancer cells

Oh, I'm sure they do.

 

[River]

it is YOUR system that you don't want to actually plan out, since it makes no sense at all.

I don't have a concept of meritocracy, since it is obvious that Merit is a useless term.

Well its certainly true that meritocracy does not = socialist dream where everyone has the same assets/bank accounts or abilities and is entitled to free stuff.

People can chose what to do with their assets, and how hard or smart to work. I'm curious where you got the idea that a meritocracy would somehow equalize wealth distribution?

 

[River]

One more time...

If there is a statistical correlation between Characteristic A and Characteristic B, anything that affects those with Characteristic A will, by extension, affect those with Characteristic B to the extent of that correlation. This is true even if there is no causal relationship between the two characteristics.

So, if I want to reduce the number of black or Hispanic people that vote, I would first look at the characteristics of those populations and notice that they are more likely to be poor than white people. So if I institute a policy that makes it harder for poor people to vote, I am affecting more black/Hispanic people than white people.

This accomplishes my goal. Sure some white people are affected, but that's acceptable because significantly more black people are affected. As a bonus, because I don't directly target the minorities, I can argue that I'm not targeting race.

It's similar to how chemotherapy works. Chemotherapy is essentially giving the patient poison. That poison, however, is more lethal to hypoxic cells. It doesn't target cancer, it targets cells with low oxygen levels. Tumors tend to be hypoxic as you have an overgrown mass of cells with inadequate blood supply to deliver oxygen. So the doctors give the patient a poison that is more likely to affect cancer cells, though it will also affect some healthy cells, which is why chemo makes people sick. The hope is to kill the cancer before killing the patient.

Voter registration laws can do the same thing. Just substitute minorities for cancer cells, white people for healthy cells and poverty for hypoxic.

(Note: I'm remembering from my Radiation Biology class 28 years ago, so details may not be perfect. Might be conflating hypoxic with something else, but the point stands.)

I'm not against voter ID laws as long as they are accompanied by an effort to provide the required IDs to everyone who wants one with minimal effort.

For the most part, they are already. No particular field or requirement is harder to meet for someone based solely on their ethnicity. This is important. Do I feel like a free ID should be available in all states? Yep. Even a federal one. Do I feel like the requirements to get one should be relaxed? Nope. Verification of the facts is what makes the ID important and legitimate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

For the most part, they are already..

"For the most part" isn't good enough.

 

[Thermal]

They would still be eligible to vote where their residence is. Where are they claiming residence? (their address) That is where they are eligible to vote. If they have lived in a different area for the regulated time, they must change their residence.

Why is that hard to understand? The rules are the same for everyone.

No, when Republicans challenge voters eligibility, they often do so by a mass mailing to the registered address. If my kids did not get that mail in time (eta: or throw it out thinking it is junk mail), they could be purged.

You say the rules are the same for everyone. Agreed. The rule is that government issued ID is not needed for voting. Done and done.

Why disenfranchise transient people without gov"t ID?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well its certainly true that meritocracy does not = socialist dream where everyone has the same assets/bank accounts or abilities and is entitled to free stuff.

People can chose what to do with their assets, and how hard or smart to work. I'm curious where you got the idea that a meritocracy would somehow equalize wealth distribution?

Not me, everyone who is serious about Meritocracy.
As mentioned, I find the concept a non-starter.

You, on the other hand, just want Capitalism, but don't want to feel bad about it.
How does your idea of a Meritocracy go beyond " no welfare queens"?

 

[TomB]

For the most part, they are already. No particular field or requirement is harder to meet for someone based solely on their ethnicity. This is important. Do I feel like a free ID should be available in all states? Yep. Even a federal one. Do I feel like the requirements to get one should be relaxed? Nope. Verification of the facts is what makes the ID important and legitimate.

That's kind of the point of everything I just posted. It's more difficult due to economic status which happens to correlate to race. If you desre to make something harder for minorities, you don't have to target race directly, you target economic status.

So yes, make IDs free and have ID drives in impoverished neighborhoods (similar to voter registration drives) and I might back it. But I have yet to see a voter ID law that also included an effort to get more people IDs.

 

[River]

Not me, everyone who is serious about Meritocracy.
As mentioned, I find the concept a non-starter.

You, on the other hand, just want Capitalism, but don't want to feel bad about it.
How does your idea of a Meritocracy go beyond " no welfare queens"?

So where you and I disagree is purely on how someones assets would be distributed after death, or during life? (or both) I want to fully understand your position.

I do advocate capitalism, and don't feel bad one bit about it. People should be able to advance by working hard and having good financial habits. People should also be able to build large companies, and give to whomever they chose. (within international requirements, or regulations)

Trying to regulate such things the way you've suggested some propose would not only be a logistical nightmare, it would also be a nightmare as to how much government control would be needed to implement it.

 

[River]

That's kind of the point of everything I just posted. It's more difficult due to economic status which happens to correlate to race. If you desre to make something harder for minorities, you don't have to target race directly, you target economic status.

So yes, make IDs free and have ID drives in impoverished neighborhoods (similar to voter registration drives) and I might back it. But I have yet to see a voter ID law that also included an effort to get more people IDs.

I'll chose to ignore the racist intent of your message, and take it as you did not intend it to come across as such. We do agree free ID is a good idea. Everyone that wants to vote should.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

River, nothing what you have said so far shows that you want a Meritocracy.

And I have suggested no policies whatsoever.

 

[River]

River, nothing what you have said so far shows that you want a Meritocracy.

And I have suggested no policies whatsoever.

Sure I have. I've advocated for a system where people can get rewarded based on their performance. (colorblind, sex blind meritocracy) You and others have suggested that meritocracy somehow involves giving up all you've earned after your life, or not being able to share or gift things to others. (insane?)

I'm not quite sure how that is even possible. But whatever.

 

[TomB]

I'll chose to ignore the racist intent of your message, and take it as you did not intend it.

My point, obviously, is that racist goals can be accomplished without directly targeting race. But I think you know that.

Besides the ID requirement, another example from US history is poll taxes.