Race Fraud

[Lplus]

Equality of opportunity kind of ends up being equality of outcome. I understand that it can be defined in narrow, libertarian terms, but rhetorically, this is how I always see the argument going...

None of us are born with the same opportunities in life. We aren't born as smart, as strong, as attractive, as rich, in a location with the same opportunities, to parents who invest in us, or with inclinations that society is equally able or willing to cater to. Life is inevitable a game of poker where some people come to the table with more chips than they can carry, while others have to borrow chips just to play. To get people to the table with the same number of chips, you are already engaged in the same cosmic battle to level the playing field that the equality of outcome folks are involved in.

To achieve what they want, you need to remove the game of chance completely

I think equality of outcome is a bad goal, but in choosing equality of opportunity as our goal, the moral frame is already given away. Equality of opportunity relies on the argument not being followed to it's conclusions, and these days it is pretty much guaranteed to be.

The better attack on this is that the analogy of the boxes is artificial. The universe of the problem is artificially narrow and quantifiable. It is the same narrow little trolley bus world in which utilitarianism, or libertarianism work just fine. A more realistic version would involve people who had no interest in watching the game being given boxes, elderly people who needed the box to sit on having the box taken away from them, while the cost of boxes is driven up creating scarcity in other places. Maybe people used to bring boxes to stand on, but they don't bother any more because they are just going to be taken and handed out to people who didn't. Now that free viewing is officially sanctioned, people stop paying for the seats and the whole things has to be subsidised. Maybe you can level the outcome of the visibility, but you have made other outcomes less equal to achieve that one equal outcome. If I worked for and paid for my three boxes, but you've taken two away and given them to people who did nothing for them, we've made one outcome equal, by making another less equal. It assumes an understanding of the problem, and an ability to fix the problem without creating worse problems elsewhere that is in question. Effectively the very things that are at issue are smuggled in.

The example of affirmative action seemed to be being referenced. It's been, what, 60 years? How is that going? I don't doubt that we know how to improve individual metrics.... one could after all just skew test scores, policing, or hiring practices along racial lines to hit particular targets. It won't be long before there are few people left alive who were around when we first started redistributing boxes. How much longer do we think will be required before we are done with this in, say, California? Not perfect, but good enough? 20 years? 100 years? Never? Do we actually know how to do what is depicted in the cartoon?

In theory yes - it's called communism. In practice, no, because the human animal isn't even vaguely altruistic enough to accept it.

 

[shuttlt]

To achieve what they want, you need to remove the game of chance completely

Or make it so the game doesn't matter. Would we even like the practical realities of a world where there was equality of outcome, or even equality of opportunity?

In theory yes - it's called communism. In practice, no, because the human animal isn't even vaguely altruistic enough to accept it.

As I said, same with a bunch of theories. That's why you often have a point where a miracle occurs and a new type of man who is suited to the theory emerges.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is why we say that you need to treat people equitably, not equally.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_43326355e396bd6a6.png[/qimg]

Aside from the fact that this doesn't constitute an argument for "why" at all, I think it's a bit of a Freudian slip on the part of the cartoonist that all three people are basically stealing a view of a game they didn't pay for.

"Equity" is a farce. Whatever noble intentions might inspire it, it's never noble in practice.

 

[Delvo]

Or make it so the game doesn't matter. Would we even like the practical realities of a world where there was equality of outcome, or even equality of opportunity?

Outcome/opportunity isn't even the right way to look at this anyway, because the kids in the first frame do not have the same opportunity that the adult has.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unfortunately that would not be realistic.

Because a lot of the time, people need those benefits, just to bring them up to baseline. You can't just ignore or wipe the slate clean of decades or centuries of systematic racism.

Racial preferences don't accomplish that. They don't bring people up to baseline. We have been trying them for decades, and they don't accomplish what they were intended to accomplish. So that justification doesn't work.

 

[catsmate]

Sorry, I thought it was quite clear that I disputed your claim that it was an interesting case of rape fraud in this thread you created about rape fraud. Now that you've walked it back to merely an allegation, I'm not disputing that an allegation has been made.

You were.
Except for someone actively avoiding clarity.

 

[wareyin]

Let's ask the whomever posted the OP whether Liz Warren and Joely Proudfit (both fairly ambiguous cases) are on topic or not.

Nah, we already know that in his opinion saying something is a case of race fraud doesn't mean it's a case of race fraud. See your final paragraph for evidence (before you ask)

I'll take quotes no one ever actually said for $500, Alex.

Oooh, I'm sorry, but that category isn't on the board.

For future reference, when I say something is an "interesting case" I do not mean to imply that we already know how the case will resolve.

For future reference, if you refer to something as a case of race fraud (whether or not you include an adjective such as interesting, convincing, affirming to your preconceptions, etc) you are claiming it is a case of race fraud. Your insistence on poor communication is what drags out your threads so long.

 

[theprestige]

Because a lot of the time, people need those benefits, just to bring them up to baseline. You can't just ignore or wipe the slate clean of decades or centuries of systematic racism.

This is why we say that you need to treat people equitably, not equally.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_43326355e396bd6a6.png[/qimg]

Well the push for equitable outcomes certainly creates a motive to commit race fraud. And allows us to make a prediction: Race fraud will become widespread as and where the push for equitable outcomes becomes entrenched.

 

[d4m10n]

For future reference, if you refer to something as a case of race fraud...

Once again, I never referred to either Warren or Proudfit as a case of race fraud, though I'd say they are both interesting cases in and of themselves. Both women have been rejected by the specific tribes from whom they claim ancestry, but that doesn't mean they don't have any native ancestry. They may well even have ancestry from those tribes, just not any they can prove. Littlefeather is in a similar situation, in that she almost certainly has native ancestry (from Mexico) but probably doesn't have any Apache ancestry. All three of these women are on topic here, regardless of whether we believe them or believe the tribes which rejected their claims.

Your insistence on poor communication is what drags out your threads so long.

I would have guessed it's your insistence on refusing to accept my repeated clarifications, but either way I'm happy for the company. One of these days you may even comment on the substance of the thread itself!

Aside from the fact that this doesn't constitute an argument for "why" at all, I think it's a bit of a Freudian slip on the part of the cartoonist that all three people are basically stealing a view of a game they didn't pay for.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should treat individuals based on their race rather than taking the nondiscrimination approach of the Civil Rights Act. What privileges should Littlefeather have had, if she'd proven up her claim to Apache identity? Possibly the benefits of any treaties between the U.S. and the tribe, or benefits flowing from the tribe to its members.

Well the push for equitable outcomes certainly creates a motive to commit race fraud.

Only if we're determined to level by race instead of more salient factors such as SES.

 

[wareyin]

Once again, I never referred to either Warren or Proudfit as a case of race fraud, though I'd say they are both interesting cases in and of themselves.

Context, d4m10n, context. You create a thread about your latest right wing culture war manufactroversy, then present something in that thread as a case. This is where you're claiming what you present as an "interesting case" is a case of whatever your thread is about.

Walking it back later, after you've read the article and realized it wasn't the cut and dried case you thought it was when you first posted the link, isn't a "clarification."

 

[d4m10n]

Context, d4m10n, context. You create a thread about your latest right wing culture war manufactroversy, then present something in that thread as a case.

Notice that I included Warren in the OP, even though I've argued that her native ancestry is genuine if remote. This thread was never intended to include only cut-and-dried cases like Baldwin or Dolezal, despite your efforts to mischaraterize it as such.

Notice also that the people calling out "pretendians" are not right wing culture warriors, but Native American activists and mainstream journalists. Mischaracterization once again.

 

[shuttlt]

Notice that I included Warren in the OP, even though I've argued that her native ancestry is genuine if remote.

Is there any kind of cutoff here? 10s of thousands of years ago, my ancestors migrated out of Africa. Go back far enough and all my ancestors are black. If I went about leveraging my black ancestry, and letting my hair go natural à la Rachel Dolezal, I do not think I would be being honest.

 

[wareyin]

Notice that I included Warren in the OP, even though I've argued that her native ancestry is genuine if remote. This thread was never intended to include only cut-and-dried cases like Baldwin or Dolezal, despite your efforts to mischaraterize it as such.

Oh, I certainly recognize that you intended your thread on race fraud to also discuss things which weren't race fraud. I've already stated such, as it is par for the course for your right wing culture war manufactroversy threads. Your "cancel culture irl" has more examples of people that weren't canceled and/or the events didn't happen in real life than would actually fit if you limited yourself to the topic.

It's how you pad the thread to make it look like whatever the crisis du jour is, is real and pressing rather than edge cases and right wing propaganda.

Notice also that the people calling out "pretendians" are not right wing culture warriors, but Native American activists and mainstream journalists. Mischaracterization once again.

<looks at thread, sees who is pretending this is an issue> Are you sure about that?

 

[d4m10n]

Are you sure about that?

Quite sure. Look who did the reporting on Warren and Proudfit and Littlefeather.

I've already stated such, as it is par for the course for your right wing culture war manufactroversy threads.

This is an assertion without any evidential backing. The people calling out pretendians are actual Native Americans, not right wing culture warriors. Most often the call outs begin within the tribe itself. Cherokee in Warren's case, Apache in Littlefeather's case, Pechanga in Proudfit's case. I don't claim to know who's right, but it's pretty obvious that the cirticism is coming from native sources rather than right-wing sites. It is somewhat insulting for you to characterize tribal claims as "right wing culture war manufactroversy," especially since you've no idea who is correct.

 

[d4m10n]

Is there any kind of cutoff here?

1490 or thereabouts.

 

[wareyin]

Quite sure. Look who did the reporting on Warren and Proudfit and Littlefeather.

This is an assertion without any evidential backing. The people calling out pretendians are actual Native Americans, not right wing culture warriors. Most often the call outs begin within the tribe itself. Cherokee in Warren's case, Apache in Littlefeather's case, Pechanga in Proudfit's case. I don't claim to know who's right, but it's pretty obvious that the cirticism is coming from native sources rather than right-wing sites. It is somewhat insulting for you to characterize tribal claims as "right wing culture war manufactroversy," especially since you've no idea who is correct.

Attempted shifting of responsibility for who created the thread noted, but dismissed.

Get back to us when you have an example of the thing you and your fellow right wingers are pretending is a crisis that isn't something where you "have no idea who is correct", k?

 

[d4m10n]

Get back to us when you have an example of the thing you and your fellow right wingers are pretending is a crisis that isn't something where you "have no idea who is correct", k?

Not sure why you keep banging on about right-wingers. Upthread I've linked to stories and source material from Wikipedia, LA Times, NY Times, WaPo, Yale, Jacqueline Keeler & other mainstream or liberal sources. The felt need to crowbar every topic into a left/right oppositional framework is downright pathological and hinders substantive discussion.

 

[wareyin]

Not sure why you keep banging on about right-wingers. Upthread I've linked to stories and source material from Wikipedia, LA Times, NY Times, WaPo, Yale, Jacqueline Keeler & other mainstream or liberal sources. The felt need to crowbar every topic into a left/right oppositional framework is downright pathological and hinders substantive discussion.

I'm banging on about right wingers because to the extent this even maybe possibly could be a thing, the folks feigning concern about it are right wingers. As is the case in every other one of the culture war threads you create: CRT, cancel culture, removing racial slurs from official place names, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm banging on about right wingers because to the extent this even maybe possibly could be a thing, the folks feigning concern about it are right wingers.

This is very obviously incorrect, just look at any of the mainstream news stories about the tribal claims of Proudfit, Warren, & Littlefeather.

Here is a challenge: Quote a single right-wing source from upthread.

 

[wareyin]

This is very obviously incorrect, just look at any of the mainstream news stories about the tribal claims of Proudfit, Warren, & Littlefeather.

Here is a challenge: Quote a single right-wing source from upthread.

I'm not sure if there is a real reading comprehension issue at play, or if you're intentionally misunderstanding <looks at thread> as somehow not specifically talking about the participants in the thread.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not sure if there is a real reading comprehension issue at play, or if you're intentionally misunderstanding <looks at thread> as somehow not specifically talking about the participants in the thread.

You'd rather characterize the participants than their arguments and sources. I thought there was a rule against this, but please proceed. Who exactly are the "right wingers" here?

 

[wareyin]

You'd rather characterize the participants than their arguments and sources. I thought there was a rule against this, but please proceed. Who exactly are the "right wingers" here?

No, there is no rule against recognizing and commenting on which side politically a poster here is.

 

[d4m10n]

No, there is no rule against recognizing and commenting on which side politically a poster here is.

OP isn't remotely right wing, so you must be assessing the thread based on other posters.

ETA: It isn't remotely clear to me how assigning people into political bins should change anyone's perception of any of the arguments around what counts as ethnic or racial fraud and when it is harmful. Is this just an exercise in myside bias^WP or do you have a substantive point about "participants in the thread" which somehow relates to the topic at hand?

 

[wareyin]

OP isn't remotely right wing, so you must be assessing the thread based on other posters.

OP is so not right wing that he routinely creates threads to promote right wing talking points, and follows that up with defenses of the bad faith actions by right wing politicians involved in creating/perpetuating those right wing talking points.

ETA: It isn't remotely clear to me how assigning people into political bins should change anyone's perception of any of the arguments around what counts as ethnic or racial fraud and when it is harmful. Is this just an exercise in myside bias^WP or do you have a substantive point about "participants in the thread" which somehow relates to the topic at hand?

If your reading comprehension is so bad that my simple and straightforward point is still eluding you, I don't think continuing this discussion will be fruitful. If you actually do understand the point that only right wingers pretending concern over this issue makes this a right wing manufactroversy but are disingenuously feigning confusion, then that sort of bad faith discussion precludes any reason to continue this discussion.

 

[d4m10n]

OP is so not right wing that he routinely creates threads to promote right wing talking points, and follows that up with defenses of the bad faith actions by right wing politicians involved in creating/perpetuating those right wing talking points.

Your claim that race fraud is somehow a right-wing talking point seems fairly thoroughly undermined by the sources we've seen talking about the issue, which were nearly all mainstream or left-of-center. Here they are once again: NBC News, NPR, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, New York Times, Canadian Broadcasting Company, along with various and several links to Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure these outlets are not "right wingers pretending concern over this issue" for the sake of manufacturing controversy; they are mainstream outlets covering genuinely controversial actions which people on the left and right both find ethically questionable.

Your attempt to paint me as a right-winger is just so much Bulverism. Sad.

 

[wareyin]

Your claim that race fraud is somehow a right-wing talking point seems fairly thoroughly undermined by the sources we've seen talking about the issue, which were nearly all mainstream or left-of-center. Here they are once again: NBC News, NPR, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, New York Times, Canadian Broadcasting Company, along with various and several links to Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure these outlets are not "right wingers pretending concern over this issue" for the sake of manufacturing controversy; they are mainstream outlets covering genuinely controversial actions which people on the left and right both find ethically questionable.

Try to misunderstand this: And yet, the only ones pretending this is an issue around here are not on the left or in the center...

Your attempt to paint me as a right-winger is just so much Bulverism. Sad.

Oh, no I specifically said you're so not rightwing that virtually all the threads you start and all the positions you defend here are right wing. I bolded the "not" word so maybe you can see it this time.

 

[Suddenly]

Well the push for equitable outcomes certainly creates a motive to commit race fraud. And allows us to make a prediction: Race fraud will become widespread as and where the push for equitable outcomes becomes entrenched.

Eh. It's the same song conservatives always sing.

Reject a solution to fix a huge problem because there are some unprincipled people who will take advantage and receive undeserved benefit. Race fraudsters are the new welfare queens.

I mean, unless it is tax cuts or other business supports. In those cases that people will steal or dishonestly benefit is just one of those things we must endure for the greater good.

 

[theprestige]

Eh. It's the same song conservatives always sing.

Reject a solution to fix a huge problem because there are some unprincipled people who will take advantage and receive undeserved benefit. Race fraudsters are the new welfare queens.

I mean, unless it is tax cuts or other business supports. In those cases that people will steal or dishonestly benefit is just one of those things we must endure for the greater good.

Nowhere did I reject equitable outcome projects as a solution for anything.

My observation and prediction were about the (obvious) trade-offs that come with that solution. Every solution has trade-offs. Anticipating some of the negative side effects, and coming up with plans to mitigate them, is part of rational, responsible problem-solving.

Since we're here, though: It's the same song progressives always sing. Reject any proposal to mitigate negative side effects because actually auditing or managing abuses would invalidate the entire solution and we can't have that.

 

[Suddenly]

My observation and prediction were about the (obvious) trade-offs that come with that solution. Every solution has trade-offs. Anticipating some of the negative side effects, and coming up with plans to mitigate them, is part of rational, responsible problem-solving.

.[/i]

It is very easy to ignore context and restate onerous policy in neutral terms that ignore that there isn't evidence of a problem, just an assumption that people will occasionally fib.

Or how selectively these assumptions are applied.

I guess calling it a conservative theme might be unfair. The Democratic party loves self-defeating restrictions on benefits just as much if not more.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, no I specifically said you're so not rightwing that virtually all the threads you start and all the positions you defend here are right wing.

What right-wing positions are being defended in this thread? I would think progressives and conservatives would both want to avoid people taking credit for being something they aren't, at least when we're talking about "race" and ethnicity.

And yet, the only ones pretending this is an issue around here are not on the left or in the center...

No one is pretending, so far as I can tell. Skepticism isn't the same thing as assuming bad faith.

 

[theprestige]

It is very easy to ignore context and restate onerous policy in neutral terms that ignore that there isn't evidence of a problem, just an assumption that people will occasionally fib.

Or how selectively these assumptions are applied.

I guess calling it a conservative theme might be unfair. The Democratic party loves self-defeating restrictions on benefits just as much if not more.

What onerous policy? It seems like you're legitimizing my tongue in cheek comment.

 

[wareyin]

What right-wing positions are being defended in this thread? I would think progressives and conservatives would both want to avoid people taking credit for being something they aren't, at least when we're talking about "race" and ethnicity.

You answered your own question with the whole "taking credit" line, blithely ignoring the obvious fact that the only posters pretending to care about this are right wingers and pretending despite all evidence to the contrary that this is something everyone would want to care about.

No one is pretending, so far as I can tell. Skepticism isn't the same thing as assuming bad faith.

Skepticism also isn't the same thing as an inability to read context. Your failure to read the room doesn't equate to people acting in good faith.

 

[d4m10n]

You answered your own question with the whole "taking credit" line, blithely ignoring the obvious fact that the only posters pretending to care about this are right wingers and pretending despite all evidence to the contrary that this is something everyone would want to care about.

You've put me in something of a bind here. You've made an unevidenced claim, but if I ask you to provide evidence then I'll be assisting you in your intentional derail from the substance of the topic to the people in the thread. No thanks & good day!

 

[wareyin]

You've put me in something of a bind here. You've made an unevidenced claim, but if I ask you to provide evidence then I'll be assisting you in your intentional derail from the substance of the topic to the people in the thread. No thanks & good day!

To paraphrase another recent poster's response to you:
I not going to play your "Just Asking Questions" game where you insist on engaging in discussion about a topic but then also pretend to be completely uninformed about even the most basic facts surrounding it, requiring the actual discussion to stop until somebody hunts down proofs and cites to your satisfaction for even the simplest assertions.

 

[d4m10n]

Let me know if you ever decide to talk about the substance of the OP, wareyin.

 

[wareyin]

Let me know if you ever decide to talk about the substance of the OP, wareyin.

Given that the OP is long on conjecture and supposition but quite short on substance^*, I'm going to wait until this newfound fear of yours is demonstrated to be a real issue first.


Have at evidencing your claims, and we'll see.







^*like all of the threads on right wing culture war manufactroversies you create, actually

 

[d4m10n]

Given that the OP is long on conjecture and supposition but quite short on substance...

We've discussed and linked to nearly a dozen potential or actual cases so far:

1. Adams
2. Baldwin
3. Carrillo
4. Churchill
5. Dolezal
6. Durham
7. Littlefeather
8. McLaughlin
9. Proudfit
10. Smith
11. Warren

You may well consider reading up on any one of these, instead of just waving the whole thing off as a right-wing manufactured controversy. If you were to do so, you'd find that many of the critics of these people are arguing from the left or from the perspective of indigenous rights activism.

Here is just one specific example:

Ms. McLaughlin has prompted particular frustration and disgust by posing as a Hopi woman, right as the coronavirus has caused disproportionate harm to Indigenous communities in the United States.

“There are millions who want to be us,” said Jacqueline Keeler, a writer and the editor of Pollen Nation, a Native-led magazine. “These people are centering themselves in our issues, they are heading Native American departments, they are telling Native students what they can and can’t study — it’s to protect their own position. And so it does change our ability to advocate for ourselves when we are constantly being replaced by frauds, white people or other people of different backgrounds pretending to be us.”

Does the editor of Pollen Nation sound like a right-wing ideologue to you?

ETA: Let's make it an even dozen by adding Jessica Krug to the list.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ty-professor-faked-black-identity/5714726002/

 

[wareyin]

We've discussed and linked to nearly a dozen potential or actual cases so far:

In response to being accused of being long on speculation, d4m10n points out that he's got maybe 12 potential cases. You can't make this stuff up!

 

[ahhell]

In response to being accused of being long on speculation, d4m10n points out that he's got maybe 12 potential cases. You can't make this stuff up!

Considering that nobody is actually looking for this sort of thing, that certainly indicates something. There's also basically no mechanism for looking for it.

Its pretty obvious, the more benefit there is to claiming some ethnicity other than the one you are actually part of, the more people will do it. Claiming Native American ancestry has long had a sort of social cache in the US, so most folks know someone that claimed to be 1/8 whatever local tribe seemed plausible. No there are potential economic benefits aswell, shouldn't be to surprising that this becomes more common.

Other than a bit of schadenfreud, I don't really care that much but its pretty silly to dismiss it entirely because there's only a few prominent examples when the only way anyone finds out is if your sisters narc on you.

 

[wareyin]

Considering that nobody is actually looking for this sort of thing, that certainly indicates something. There's also basically no mechanism for looking for it.

Its pretty obvious, the more benefit there is to claiming some ethnicity other than the one you are actually part of, the more people will do it.

Plenty of things appear obvious until you actually do the research to find out your underlying assumptions were wrong, or you were missing some crucial information.

Claiming Native American ancestry has long had a sort of social cache in the US, so most folks know someone that claimed to be 1/8 whatever local tribe seemed plausible. No there are potential economic benefits aswell, shouldn't be to surprising that this becomes more common.

I love it when your typos are Freudian slips. Are there material economic benefits? No, as you say.

Other than a bit of schadenfreud, I don't really care that much but its pretty silly to dismiss it entirely because there's only a few prominent examples when the only way anyone finds out is if your sisters narc on you.

You're welcome to assume that this is some real, large problem despite no evidence pointing to that. It is the right wing position as per this thread. I think it's pretty silly to take something that one only has a handful of examples, and out of those all or almost all are only potential rather than proven, and run around like the sky is falling.