Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later

[TimG]

Yes it does. If that's not racism then words no longer have meaning.

Sure it has meaning. You are the one trying to devalue the meaning of the word by using it inappropriate contexts.

I am also aware that social activists constantly try to change the definitions of words because they think it provides propaganda to promote their various causes. Linking to an article that tries to rationalize propaganda does not make the propaganda true.

Racist laws are laws which target people based on race. Full stop.

Laws which have side effects are not racist.

Edited September 13, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

Racist laws are laws which target people based on race. Full stop.

Indeed. I wish people would stop trying to redefine words to suit their ideologies. First people with functional penises can be women if they say so, next laws that say absolutely nothing about race are racist. Sorry but physical and logical reality trumps human feelings.

[TimG]

Indeed. I wish people would stop trying to redefine words to suit their ideologies.

This example illustrates how absurd their labeling is because there are many ways to mitigate the negative side effects of voter id laws. Yet by labeling the laws as racist they imply that there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws and they should not exist in the first place which precludes any constructive discussion on how to mitigate the negative side effects. Edited September 13, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Indeed. I wish people would stop trying to redefine words to suit their ideologies. First people with functional penises can be women if they say so, next laws that say absolutely nothing about race are racist. Sorry but physical and logical reality trumps human feelings.

The laws don't have to say anything about race. When the law disproportionately affects one race over another then it's racist. This isn't very difficult to understand nor to see why it's racist.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Washington sued Jacksonville, FL because their firefighter tests had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. For some reason they were testing lower and these tests were shown to have no bearing on the abilities of the candidates for the jobs in question. The rules did not mention race in them at all, but African-American candidates consistently tested lower. Even the ones that passed, where typically lower than other white candidates. This effectively prohibited black people from being promoted. This wasn't the intent behind the tests or rules, but it was the effect. In this case, intention doesn't matter at all. The rules are still racist, as they create a barrier for one race over another. Voter ID laws address a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist and they have a disparate impact, affecting black voters way more than white voters. This effectively limits their ability to vote. Despite the law not having racist language in it and masking its intent, it is still institutionalized racism since its result is a barrier to blacks voting whether that's the intention or not.

You and TimG can plug your ears and be dismissive of racism all you want, claiming it's liberal nonsense and the redefining of words. The reality is that this is racism and it's even codified into US laws that this is racism. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to have such a limited notion of racism that only includes intentional, overt and interpersonal racist actions and language, but that is not the only way racism manifests itself and that is not the only way it is understood before the law. What you're arguing here is akin to saying someone that has been emotionally abused for decades was not abused because the person doing it never once struck them. You're limiting the definition racism to suit your own argument and it's completely transparent. I'm used to TimG constantly being dismissive of anything that doesn't fit his narrow worldview, but I'm pretty disappointed to see you employing the same tactics here.

[jacee]

First: this has absolutely nothing to do with absurd claim that voter ID laws are racist.

Racism exists.

It's appropriate to identify racism where it occurs.

Second: I noticed that when I first posted my resume on Monster I got a lot of contacts from employers. But after a while I got nothing. I suspect a lot of this burst activity has been the result of her creating a new listing at a time when the job market is picking up and has absolutely nothing to do with racism. If she continued the experiment for 6 month she would find the number of contacts drops to 0.

If you read the article you will see you're wrong in your interpretation: She had both profiles posted.

It's pathetic how you try to deny, dismiss and denigrate people's experience of racism.

Of course, these kinds of confounding issues are why they say 'anecdotes are not data'.

Who are "they"? Link please.

I think it's pretty clearly demonstrated in this experience that racism exists.

Edited September 13, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

The only racist laws are laws which specifically target people based on the race.

How incredibly naive ... or how incredibly in denial.

Inform yourself about institutional racism, TimG.

Racism

The third form of institutional racism exists when policies or programs seem racially neutral but either intentionally or unintentionally, put minority group members at a disadvantage.

"Remedies" ... yes. Have any "remedies" been implemented in the Southern states to prevent the racist impact of the law?

[TimG]

If you read the article you will see you're wrong in your interpretation: She had both profiles posted.

I suggest you go back and read what I said and stop making up strawmen that suit your prejudices.

What I said was *new* profiles on Monster generate a lot of interest for the first few weeks.

The person may have had two profiles posted but only one was *new* so only it attracted interest.

Her original profile likely attracted less interest because when it was *new* because there were fewer employers looking 3 years ago.

To do an experiment properly she would have had to create two *new* profiles - one for a black person and one for a white person and compare. But she did not do that.

It is pathetic how people like you scream racism without taking the time to consider alternative explanations.

Like the boy who cried wolf you devalue the experience of people who really experience racism.

Edited September 13, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to have such a limited notion of racism that only includes intentional, overt and interpersonal racist actions and language.

It is extremely important to distinguish between actual racism and unintentional side effects because laws/rules which are actually racist are never acceptable. Laws or rules which have a disproportionate effect on some groups are often justified even if there is a disproportionate effect.

For example, the rules used to choose track and field candidates for the Olympic team have a disproportionate effect on Asians. Yet most people will agree it would be absurd to change the rules to address this 'racism' (sic).

By calling everything racist you are attempting to prevent a rational discussion of whether the rules are reasonable. This is wrong.

Edited September 13, 2013 by TimG

[Argus]

In other words they are bought off by big labour, big business, the environmental movement, lobbyists representing hospitals and universities, and advocacy groups for the poor. Just like the Republicans who are bought off by big business, lobbyists representing church groups, and advocacy groups for gun ownership. Everyone is bought off. There are no selfless/virtuous politicians. Just different groups that buy different people off.

I wouldn't describe the Democrats as virtuous or selfless. However, their constituency is ordinary people. The constituency of the Republican party is the wealthy elites. Now if you happen to be a member of the wealthy elites then by all means, supporting the Republicans makes sense. If you're anyone else than you're just cutting your own throats, much like Jews voting for Hitler.

[Argus]

Mindlessly screaming "racist" at the top of your lungs is not a good argument, and hasn't been for some decades.

I call em as I see em.

And I am about as far from being politically correct as you're going to find.

[Argus]

The fact is this requirement would be a non-issue if it did not happen to adversely democrat election chances

If it didn't adversely affect Democrat election chances the Republicans would not have any interest in implimenting it. What you are supporting I-hate-taxes-and-regulations is a political party implimenting an expensive new regulation which will disenfranchise millions of voters solely for their own political benefit.

So it's okay for political parties to do that? You're an Ontario Liberal, I take it?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Argus

[TimG]

If it didn't adversely affect Democrat election chances the Republicans would not have any interest in implimenting it.

Providing ID to vote has been a non-controversial requirement in Canada for as long as I can remember. It is one of the basic regulations that one expects a civilized society to have in place. The only reason it is an issue in the US is because democrats are lazy and would rather demagogue against a reasonable requirement instead of working to ensure their voters can get the required ID.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index〈=e

To vote, you must prove your identity and address. You have three options:

Option 1

Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Option 2

Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Option 3

Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.

Edited September 14, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

It still boggles my mind that individual states get to dictate who votes in a federal elections. Truly strange.

[Argus]

Providing ID to vote has been a non-controversial requirement in Canada for as long as I can remember. It is one of the basic regulations that one expects a civilized society to have in place. The only reason it is an issue in the US is because democrats are lazy and would rather demagogue against a reasonable requirement instead of working to ensure their voters can get the required ID.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index〈=e

And if American rules were similar there'd be no problem, but they aren't, of course, which makes it odd you should even post this.

You also haven't come up with why, all of a sudden, all these Republican governors have simultaneously realized the desperate importance of voter Id laws when they never did before, and why it is only Republicans seem to care...

Oh, and you were going to tell me why you, as a conservative, support an expensive new law without any demonstrated need...

Edited September 14, 2013 by Argus

[TimG]

You also haven't come up with why, all of a sudden, all these Republican governors have simultaneously realized the desperate importance of voter Id laws when they never did before, and why it is only Republicans seem to care...

I suspect it has more to do with illegal immigration than anything else. I think a few republicans looked at the election laws were surprised that no ID is required and felt this potential loop hole needed to be closed.

The narrative that ID laws reduce the democratic vote because of 'barriers' that prevent black people from getting ID is a concoction of left wing academia and not an idea that a republican would give any credence to. A republican would have simply assumed that if the ID laws are in place then blacks without IDs would simply get them.

I also looked into the laws that you complain about. As far as I can tell they are no more onerous in Canada so your claim that they are somehow worse does not hold water. Same with your 'too much bureaucracy argument' since most people already had ID. The only new bureaucracy would be required to address the complaints of the democrats that poor people find it hard to get ID.

Edited September 16, 2013 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Providing ID to vote has been a non-controversial requirement in Canada for as long as I can remember.

It's not a requirement.

[cybercoma]

I've never had to show ID to vote in Canada.

[Wilber]

I've never had to show ID to vote in Canada.

Not even your registration form you received in the mail?

[The_Squid]

Not even your registration form you received in the mail?

That's not a picture ID. And everyone receives one free if they're registered.

[The_Squid]

I've never had to show ID to vote in Canada.

I'm not sure why people on this forum remain ignorant of Canadian voting rules regardless of how many times its explained and how many links to the rules are posted....

[Wilber]

That's not a picture ID. And everyone receives one free if they're registered.

No, it is not picture ID but the name on the form is crossed off the voters list when it is presented at the polling station. You could conceivably give it to someone else but you would be giving up your own vote in order to do it. You would also be breaking the law.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Wilber

[TimG]

I'm not sure why people on this forum remain ignorant of Canadian voting rules regardless of how many times its explained and how many links to the rules are posted....

I know what you mean. I posted a link to the elections Canada website that states very clearly that ID is *required* to vote in Canadian elections yet some yahoo comes along as claims that it is not required. Can't these people read? Edited September 17, 2013 by TimG

[The_Squid]

I know what you mean. I posted a link to the elections Canada website that states very clearly that ID is *required* to vote in Canadian elections yet some yahoo comes along as claims that it is not required. Can't these people read?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index〈=e#three

See option 2. There is no government issued picture ID required.

Option 3 you can have nothing, as long as you swear an oath and have another voter who knows you vouch for you. They must have ID... the voter does not need ID.

[TimG]

See option 2. There is no government issued picture ID required.

Some sort of ID is required (many of the choices do have pictures) + a document addressed to the voter from some official organization - something which can be tough for a poor person to get.

Option 3 you can have nothing, as long as you swear an oath and have another voter who knows you vouch for you. They must have ID... the voter does not need ID.

But ID is required which is my point. You cannot vote in Canada without ID although a neighbor with ID can vouch for 1 voter who has no ID. Again - not a requirement that can easily be met by poor people who generally associate with people who have the same ID problems that they do.

You cannot walk into a voting place and cast a vote without providing evidence of who you are (even if that evidence is provided by a neighbor with ID willing to sign a legal oath). The distinction between the different types of ids and whether it is government issued picture id or not is irrelevant. Id is the requirement yet we see Canadian lefties berating Republicans for bringing in laws which left wing Canadians are fine with. raging hypocrisy.

Edited September 17, 2013 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

A recent study by three University of Rochester political scientists found that:

"Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves population in 1860 are less likely to identify as Democrat, more likely to oppose to affirmative action policies, and more likely to express racial resentment toward blacks."

I just wanted to make it known that this study is a "working paper", and it has not yet gone through the peer-review process or been published yet in a scholarly journal.

That said, a study done by 3 professors with PhD's (even if it's not peer-reviewed yet) is still a lot more legitimate in my mind than the vast majority of newspaper articles and op-eds printed every day.