I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Replaced_Texan]

*sigh*

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

*sigh*

He just needs more mushrooms - https://www.theguardian.com/society/...n-studies-show

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

*sigh*

Hey, it could always be worse.

[notcasesensitive]

I forget who here was arguing with me about whether our extreme exceptionalism is an issue or not, I think it was GGG (the argument was something like "no, all countries think they are exceptional in their own way"). Anyway, I'd refer that person the Oliver Stone's series Untold History of the United States (streaming now on Netflix) for a 10-12 hour exposition on what I was trying to say.

And yes, (1) I am rather embarrassed to say the Oliver Stone has my proxy on this and (2) I did get a kick of some of his conspiracy theories which he alluded to tangentially for good measure.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Another addition to the why-Clinton-lost-blame-list: big data.

[Adder]

On the one hand, Gen. Mattis seems like a competent, experienced individual Trump might actually listen to.

On the other hand, some civilian oversight is a good thing and it sounds like Mattis wants war with Iran.

Otherwise, remember when Hillary was going to be more war-like than Trump??

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here's a long read, worth your while, without much of a political valence.

[SEC_Chick]

This was fascinating, especially hearing the thoughts of the Trump and Clinton campaign staffs and their (quite obviously adversarial) interactions. Conway v. Palmieri is some good stuff.


I have only listened to the general election panel, listed last, but the rest of it looks interesting as well:

http://iop.harvard.edu/get-inspired/...gers-look-2016

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's a long read, worth your while, without much of a political valence.

do you get a commission if someone signs up to read it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you get a commission if someone signs up to read it?

As far as I know, the WSJ doesn't roll that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Excellent piece on Trump's economics pitch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Your ability to slide left, right, back, and forth away from the point is astounding.

Like deer guts on a doorknob.

While I appreciate what you wrote above, none of it really addresses the point. Your comfort levels are irrelevant. There are actual historical reasons why voter suppression is designed the way it is designed. Your inclination to argue that the suppression of the black vote is really just about them voting Democrat is either willfully uninformed or purposefully lazy. You cloak your arguments in this general theme of complete detachment you love so much, but the simple fact is, detached or not you cannot have a discussion about voter suppression without recognizing how we got here, whether it's:

• the latest suppression tools, requiring voter ID and cutting access to early voting
• the Supreme Court's ridiculous decision to destroy the VRA (which required historically racist states to preclear changes in voting laws), which resulted in laws being passed immediately in TX, MS, NC, FL, VA, SD, IA, and IN
• the removal of the right to vote from the current and formerly incarcerated and the facts behind that (which are that this country incarcerates blacks and Hispanics at extremely disproportionate levels)
• the historical and plentiful efforts to keep blacks from voting since winning suffrage (grandfather clauses that said former slaves couldn't vote, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.)

Oversimplifying the issue by saying, "Republicans suppress black votes because they tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat," is exactly why they are so successful at enacting these laws. Everyone on this board knows it's not that simple. There are many reasons why all of these localities suppress the black vote and they range from pure racism (blacks are inferior and shouldn't get to vote) to classism (blacks who are poor will vote for things in my county that benefit them when I would prefer municipal, county, state, and federal money go to shit for me) to pure politics (blacks vote Democrat and I'm a Republican). Your intentional focus on just one of those things intentionally overlooks the history of voter suppression and ignores the fact that voting is how anyone in this country is able to have a voice, be represented, and be granted societal resources.

I was trying to emphasize my view that the pure politics and classism are the most significant of the three elements you cite above. I'm exposed to many flyoverland types on a regular basis and it's rare to hear pure hatred for non-whites. The gripes tend to focus most on dumb beliefs that immigrants are taking jobs, and getting disproportionate benefits.

I'm not saying true white supremacists aren't part of the mix. Thankfully, I'm not exposed to much of that. The racism I see is the polite and hidden forms of it.

You should be. That's the point. We should all feel uncomfortable about that and a society that would disenfranchise people based on the color of their skin. I want you to feel that discomfort whenever you get the urge to remove the historical context of why things are the way they are in favor of reducing efforts like voter suppression to: Republicans just trying to beat Democrats in the political game.

That's fair, and I can understand why you'd be frustrated with what I wrote.

The preclearance requirement of the VRA required states which historically suppressed the black vote to submit any change to their voting laws for approval. When the Supreme Court destroyed it, those states (and others) immediately enacted laws that overwhelmingly affect black voters. I am not making the discussion about racism. It is about racism. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and agreed that the impetus behind voter suppression laws was purely political, the effect is that such laws overwhelmingly target black voters. That's institutional racism.

I'll admit, I've had a problem with the concept of institutional racism. I've applied a more rigid definition that if a thing isn't racist by design and intent, it isn't racist.

And here is where I think you and so many others get caught up. It doesn't fucking matter whether a law, regulation, court decision, departmental practice, trend, whatever was not designed to be racist in a dark room by a bunch of white people thinking about how they can screw black people. What matters is that it does.

See my last comment above this quoted paragraph. I hear your point.

Think about what you just said. Black voters are not perceived to be stalwart Democratic voters. They are because of the actions Republican politicians who attempt to curtail rights for blacks at every fucking turn. They are because Republicans at best turn a blind eye to and at worst are the proponents of police brutality, disparate treatment, discrimination in education, housing, finance, and the justice system, etc. Sure, Republicans would love to grab the black vote. But they cannot because their appeal to their base is that they will to continue to screw blacks as much as they can. Talking about voter suppression--one such tool they use to implement that screwing--like it is being implemented without regard to the color of the skin of the people being purposefully suppressed is the very definition of insanity.

I think there's an argument of degree here. It needs to be acknowledged, as you did above, that there are three - probably actually more - elements of racism at work in voter suppression. There's classism, racial hatred, and pure politics behind it. Yes, the impact is racist. But I think one of the things that causes causes white resistance to a discussion of voter suppression is that when people bluntly allege "racism," those accusers don't explain it as you have here. "Racist impact" or "result" might be the best way to put it.

If you vote for David Duke because he said he would magically get your job back and you ignore everything else, you may not be racist, but you sure as hell are okay with racism. And the fact that so many people are okay with putting a racist, misogynist, xenophobic, piece of shit at the helm of this country says a lot about the people who put him there.

I can't speak for Trump voters. I'm sure they all have a lot of reasons, many quite bizarre, some quite rational, for supporting him. But as to the people who did so out of desperation, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs explains a lot. They'd have elected that pig Dick Gregory ran years ago if could have oinked, "I'll bring 'yur jobs back." Racism, sexism, xenophobia... these considerations take a back seat when you can't pay the rent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm exposed to many flyoverland types on a regular basis and it's rare to hear pure hatred for non-whites. The gripes tend to focus most on dumb beliefs that immigrants are taking jobs, and getting disproportionate benefits.

Those things are racism. Anger that non-whites are getting something. That's it.

Yeah, you don't see/hear a lot of overt hate, but it's not hard to find biased discomfort and prejudiced thinking.

I'll admit, I've had a problem with the concept of institutional racism. I've applied a more rigid definition that if a thing isn't racist by design and intent, it isn't racist.

Okay, but things like NC's voter suppression law are racist by design and intent. They thought up ways to keep black people from voting and enacted them.

Which is what they've done elsewhere, just with a bit more finesse to not actually document that as their intent.

See also, the criminal justice system.

Yes, the impact is racist. But I think one of the things that causes causes white resistance to a discussion of voter suppression is that when people bluntly allege "racism," those accusers don't explain it as you have here. "Racist impact" or "result" might be the best way to put it.

I'm sure you've seen this, but:

A federal appeals court decisively struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law on Friday, saying its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.

This isn't impact or result. This is intent.

[Hank Chinaski]

So the recounts will cost millions? Wouldn't the money be better kept as a legal fund for immigrants or to fight LGBT issues? Or will there likely be lots of money for that?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Another addition to the why-Clinton-lost-blame-list: big data.

Fascinating. I'd love to get to rip into that program and understand some of the guts of its logic. Also love that it is named Ada.

The hardest thing to do in an algorithmic system is figure out new dynamics. If you're in a closed system where the inputs are constant and predictable, sure. But if new stuff is happening that is not directly related to the old trends, the algorithms tend to fight it, and it's just a question of how hard they fight that kind of fundamental change.

Systems will keep getting better. But Foundation-style psycho-history is a long, long way away.