Poll

[US] What political party do you identify with/belong to/vote for?

Independent
10 (16.1%)
Democrat
23 (37.1%)
Republican
7 (11.3%)
Libertarian
3 (4.8%)
Green Party
1 (1.6%)
Other
1 (1.6%)
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and worship Him as my God.
4 (6.5%)
None / No political affiliation
13 (21%)

Total Members Voted: 61

Author Topic: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?  (Read 3235 times)

curious_george

  • Guest
[US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« on: December 03, 2024, 06:42:25 PM »
What is your political party?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2024, 09:15:19 PM by TreeLeaf »

NotJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Location: USA
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2024, 06:56:04 PM »
I don't associate with any political party.

There's no "all of the above" option - I have voted for candidates in all the parties you listed in the poll in various elections.  Depends on the candidate and position.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 21008
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2024, 07:11:47 PM »
Please put "[US]" in the title since this is country specific.

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1328
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2024, 08:03:15 PM »
Which of these do you want?

identify with/belong to/vote for

I identify with a party, but I'm registered independent. That said, I've voted for another party in the (distant) past. I also know people who vote differently (Republican/Democrat) than the party they identify with (3rd party).

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3408
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2024, 08:29:48 PM »
None.

I'm not affiliated with or otherwise attached to any party. Yes, this is for religious reasons -- let's just say my allegiance lies elsewhere.

I haven't voted for a presidential candidate from either major party in 15ish years. I otherwise vote for folks in other races from various parties based on their individual platform.

I've considered going full Anabaptist and abstaining from voting altogether.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2024, 08:40:59 PM by FINate »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25501
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2024, 08:40:55 PM »
I've voted Green, NDP, and Liberal.  No political affiliation.

curious_george

  • Guest
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2024, 09:14:41 PM »
Please put "[US]" in the title since this is country specific.

Thanks for the suggestion!

I have added a [US] tag.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2024, 09:38:23 PM by TreeLeaf »

curious_george

  • Guest
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2024, 09:41:12 PM »
I've voted Green, NDP, and Liberal.  No political affiliation.

I have added a None / no political affiliation option, just for you Steve.

curious_george

  • Guest
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2024, 09:47:36 PM »
Which of these do you want?

identify with/belong to/vote for

I identify with a party, but I'm registered independent. That said, I've voted for another party in the (distant) past. I also know people who vote differently (Republican/Democrat) than the party they identify with (3rd party).

Basically I'm wondering, if we were at a party and someone asked you if you are a Republican / Democrat, etc, what would you say. So I guess more what you identify with in this case, but I wouldn't think too much about it.

The secret reason behind this poll is, I'm wondering why there seems to be a lack of Republicans on this forum.

It seems like most political debates on this forum skew toward Democrat / independent / no political affiliation side of things, and it seems like there is a lack of Republicans here.

So I'm sort of looking for confirmation that there aren't that many Republicans, and perhaps an explanation as to why, since FIRE itself is not a political concept but a financial one.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Germany
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2024, 06:32:19 AM »

The secret reason behind this poll is, I'm wondering why there seems to be a lack of Republicans on this forum.
The answer to that is easy, and long known: Reality has a strong leftist bias.

As with university, if you act on your stupid believes and not on real numbers, you will have a hard time there.
Same is true for Mustachianism. If you believe that you get rich by having as much credit as possible, you will have a hard time surviving in this forum.


The ability to objective self-analysis, the ability to (critically) interpret and react to statistics and the ability to not act on irrational fears is a prerequisite for being mustachian.
But those same things also make it practically impossible to be a MAGA. And since the Republican Party today is a MAGA party...

Paper Chaser

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2024, 07:25:28 AM »

The secret reason behind this poll is, I'm wondering why there seems to be a lack of Republicans on this forum.

It seems like most political debates on this forum skew toward Democrat / independent / no political affiliation side of things, and it seems like there is a lack of Republicans here.

So I'm sort of looking for confirmation that there aren't that many Republicans, and perhaps an explanation as to why, since FIRE itself is not a political concept but a financial one.

This forum seems to be more heavily skewed to highly educated people that live in metro areas compared to the general population. Those types tend to be Democrats rather than Republicans, so some of this is just down to the types of people most capable of achieving FIRE while having time to post about it on the internet.

A handful of the more vocal conservatives have also been run off, warned, or banned outright in recent years. While I'm sure some others no longer feel like engaging in discussions where they don't feel welcome or heard.

There are a handful of pretty vocal, "Left leaning" posters here that flock to threads about politics or socially divisive issues and more or less eschew the meat and potatoes financial sections or topics on the forum. They seem to want to complain or argue more than they want to help anybody or build community. That's destructive behavior rather than constructive. I know that this is the "Off Topic" section, and lots of things get covered here. That's great. But if you look through your most recent post history, and 90% or more of your posts are about politics, abortion, Big Media, etc then maybe look inward a bit? It's a financially focused blog. If you're not here to talk about FIRE, then why are you here?

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2024, 07:59:23 AM »
The Republicans are culture warriors and believe everything can be solved with guns and tax cuts.
The Democrats are class warriors and believe everything can be solved by Robin Hood (the original one).
The Libertarians enjoy taking generalized foundation concepts to extremes and watch how others react. They don’t have solutions for anything.
The MAGAs have solutions for everything. Whatever he says.
The Socialists believe they are the Democrats’ conscience. They enjoy tempting us to bitch-slap them.

Joining or “identifying with” any of these groups is not my cup.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7644
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2024, 08:33:47 AM »
The secret reason behind this poll is, I'm wondering why there seems to be a lack of Republicans on this forum.

It seems like most political debates on this forum skew toward Democrat / independent / no political affiliation side of things, and it seems like there is a lack of Republicans here.

Near the end of the last election, the Republican party focused on advertising that, if repeated here, would get someone banned.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2024, 09:02:19 AM »
I don't fully identify with any of these. In casual conversation if I had to pick a label, I usually say Independent since I am politically active; however, I voted, "none," which is probably most accurate.

Over the years I've voted for candidates in all of these categories, but by default I vote for Dems most of the time b/c that party shares more of my basic values and priorities than the others do. Usually, I'm voting against candidates in other parties as opposed to enthusiastically for the candidate who gets my vote.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2024, 10:23:40 AM »
The secret reason behind this poll is, I'm wondering why there seems to be a lack of Republicans on this forum.

It seems like most political debates on this forum skew toward Democrat / independent / no political affiliation side of things, and it seems like there is a lack of Republicans here.

Near the end of the last election, the Republican party focused on advertising that, if repeated here, would get someone banned.

I'm a registered Republican but really only use it to vote in primaries for the least objectionable Republican. I've never voted for a Republican (yet).

I picked the FSM because I'm an athiest 100% and none of the other options 100% :)

Boll weevil

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
Re: What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2024, 11:08:01 AM »

Basically I'm wondering, if we were at a party and someone asked you if you are a Republican / Democrat, etc, what would you say.


My current answer would be “Center left, moving right, with a healthy dose of libertarianism. However, the current Republican Party is moving to the right far faster than I am.”



Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 818
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2024, 12:10:17 PM »

Basically I'm wondering, if we were at a party and someone asked you if you are a Republican / Democrat, etc, what would you say.


My current answer would be “Center left, moving right, with a healthy dose of libertarianism. However, the current Republican Party is moving to the right far faster than I am.”

I'm similar. Somehow both major parties are moving away from me.


I've occasionally joked I'm in the Stealers Wheel party ("Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right").

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5626
  • Location: US Midwest - Where Jokes Are Tricky These Days
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2024, 01:40:31 PM »
The Republicans are culture warriors and believe everything can be solved with guns and tax cuts.
The Democrats are class warriors and believe everything can be solved by Robin Hood (the original one).
The Libertarians enjoy taking generalized foundation concepts to extremes and watch how others react. They don’t have solutions for anything.
The MAGAs have solutions for everything. Whatever he says.
The Socialists believe they are the Democrats’ conscience. They enjoy tempting us to bitch-slap them.

Joining or “identifying with” any of these groups is not my cup.

A little reductive, but hilarious!

MustacheandaHalf is right about banning - there's some filter there.

***

Personally, my identity is not in a party, and my habits may be in transition. Deets:

I've voted for Dems many times, but as the party apparatus has narrowed in recent years, my comfort in voting with them has started to fade. Biden's pardon of Hunter feels like a parting salvo to separate me from identification with the party, but with Republicans focusing on a mix of nativism and destruction of trade alliances and of course destruction of govt limits on presidential power, they look terrifying to me, leaving me politically homeless.

There are plenty of sane individual Republicans and Democrats, just not a coherent party anywhere I can confidently support. :(

So in this poll, I marked "other" for the first time.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2024, 04:51:42 PM »
I voted Libertarian.

I always found it weird that there are plenty of people who are socially progressive, and plenty of people who are economically liberal (in a classical sense), but the two rarely meet.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2024, 08:12:36 AM »
I always found it weird that there are plenty of people who are socially progressive, and plenty of people who are economically liberal (in a classical sense), but the two rarely meet.

I’d be considered socially progressive to most. I don’t want the government to intervene in people’s lives so long as they’re peaceful. A diversity in lifestyles that promotes more social engagement is ultimately a good thing IMO.

I have the same feeling about many economic issues. I don’t want the government intervening in people’s lives here either. I do believe in minimal but effective regulations to ensure monopolies that hamper innovations are thwarted. And I believe that citizens and businesses should not be allowed to contribute to elections. (Disclaimer: I wasted $50 on Harris.) But aside from some basic safety net programs, I don’t want citizens to feel they can petition the government for economic support they can reasonably provide for themselves.

I despise both the culture and class wars that pit citizens against each other, and the parties that fund these wars should be outlawed. They’re both disgusting.

So I guess I do understand how these 2 rarely meet.


Greystache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2024, 08:27:07 AM »
I am registered as Independent. I used to regularly vote for Republican candidates but have been finding it more difficult to do so since that party has embraced the Christian Taliban. Even when they have ideas that I tend to support, like border security, They have to drench it in
 so much racism and xenophobia that I can't bring myself to support them. Then there is the anti-intellectualism and science denial that just strikes me wrong. Since I have become a parent and now a grandparent, I am much more concerned about how policy affects future generations and the MAGA crowd seem intent on making the world worse for them.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25501
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2024, 12:01:20 PM »
I always found it weird that there are plenty of people who are socially progressive, and plenty of people who are economically liberal (in a classical sense), but the two rarely meet.

I’d be considered socially progressive to most. I don’t want the government to intervene in people’s lives so long as they’re peaceful. A diversity in lifestyles that promotes more social engagement is ultimately a good thing IMO.

I have the same feeling about many economic issues. I don’t want the government intervening in people’s lives here either. I do believe in minimal but effective regulations to ensure monopolies that hamper innovations are thwarted. And I believe that citizens and businesses should not be allowed to contribute to elections. (Disclaimer: I wasted $50 on Harris.) But aside from some basic safety net programs, I don’t want citizens to feel they can petition the government for economic support they can reasonably provide for themselves.

I despise both the culture and class wars that pit citizens against each other, and the parties that fund these wars should be outlawed. They’re both disgusting.

So I guess I do understand how these 2 rarely meet.

Economic liberalism supports a market economy based on individualism and private property.  Individualism and private property parts depend heavily on massive government intervention to actually work.

You own a tract of land.
- A factory upstream dumps stuff into the river that goes through your property poisoning it.  Government intervention needed.
- A neighbour blasts music so loud that it's not possible for you to sleep at night, every night.  Government intervention needed.
- You want grid tied electricity on your land, roads to connect your land to other places, mail delivery so that you're able to buy things, police protection from thieves, a fire department to come out if your house catches on fire, you want schools for your kids and other kids in the area so that they don't all grow up stupid or as socially fucked up as most home-schooled kids, etc.  Shit, that's a lot of government intervention.

You're gay, trans, black, etc:
- You want to be able to buy food at the only restaurant in town, but they don't want to serve your kind.
- You want to be able to buy groceries at the grocery store, but they don't want to serve your kind.
- You don't want the guy who hates your kind, lives down the road, and has been incarcerated for hate crimes on multiple occasions to be able to legally buy a firearm from anyone's garage sale with no questions asked.


People love to rail against government and regulation in their lives . . . but the majority of rules exist for a reason, even if it's not always immediately apparent.  Libertarianism tends to forget this fact, which is why it always fails so hilariously when applied to real life.  Private property and individualism cannot exist without a heavy government presence.  Remove the regulation and you end up with loss of individualism or infringement on the ability of a person to enjoy their private property.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2024, 05:17:42 PM »
I always found it weird that there are plenty of people who are socially progressive, and plenty of people who are economically liberal (in a classical sense), but the two rarely meet.

I’d be considered socially progressive to most. I don’t want the government to intervene in people’s lives so long as they’re peaceful. A diversity in lifestyles that promotes more social engagement is ultimately a good thing IMO.

I have the same feeling about many economic issues. I don’t want the government intervening in people’s lives here either. I do believe in minimal but effective regulations to ensure monopolies that hamper innovations are thwarted. And I believe that citizens and businesses should not be allowed to contribute to elections. (Disclaimer: I wasted $50 on Harris.) But aside from some basic safety net programs, I don’t want citizens to feel they can petition the government for economic support they can reasonably provide for themselves.

I despise both the culture and class wars that pit citizens against each other, and the parties that fund these wars should be outlawed. They’re both disgusting.

So I guess I do understand how these 2 rarely meet.

Economic liberalism supports a market economy based on individualism and private property.  Individualism and private property parts depend heavily on massive government intervention to actually work.

You own a tract of land.
- A factory upstream dumps stuff into the river that goes through your property poisoning it.  Government intervention needed.
- A neighbour blasts music so loud that it's not possible for you to sleep at night, every night.  Government intervention needed.
- You want grid tied electricity on your land, roads to connect your land to other places, mail delivery so that you're able to buy things, police protection from thieves, a fire department to come out if your house catches on fire, you want schools for your kids and other kids in the area so that they don't all grow up stupid or as socially fucked up as most home-schooled kids, etc.  Shit, that's a lot of government intervention.

You're gay, trans, black, etc:
- You want to be able to buy food at the only restaurant in town, but they don't want to serve your kind.
- You want to be able to buy groceries at the grocery store, but they don't want to serve your kind.
- You don't want the guy who hates your kind, lives down the road, and has been incarcerated for hate crimes on multiple occasions to be able to legally buy a firearm from anyone's garage sale with no questions asked.


People love to rail against government and regulation in their lives . . . but the majority of rules exist for a reason, even if it's not always immediately apparent.  Libertarianism tends to forget this fact, which is why it always fails so hilariously when applied to real life.  Private property and individualism cannot exist without a heavy government presence.  Remove the regulation and you end up with loss of individualism or infringement on the ability of a person to enjoy their private property.

Government intervention is fine to institute a rule of law and prevent rights from being infringed upon. There's a difference (both in principle and in degree) between a government that aims to act as a rule-setter and adjudicator and a government that aggressively seeks to tax and redistribute. The former is there to set up a fair game and prevent certain behaviours (like misleading and deceptive conduct; monopolies and cartels; bribery) that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game. The latter is there to ensure that people's results in the game are closer to equal.

 

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Germany
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2024, 12:07:51 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7644
  • Location: U.S. expat
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2024, 12:33:45 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.
Which has nothing to do with U.S. political parties.  Because the poll isn't for you, you seem to want to drive it off topic.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Germany
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2024, 01:27:04 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.
Which has nothing to do with U.S. political parties.  Because the poll isn't for you, you seem to want to drive it off topic.
Don't worry, I didn't poll.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2024, 04:44:41 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US and only a small minority here would want a government that pushed it on us. We love Europe but we haven’t looked there for a sense of cultural identity for almost a century and we don’t envy its political models.  We’re not overly critical, but it’s just not us.

Americans are aware that some people see us as the worst. We disagree. And most honestly don't care what they think.

Vive la difference.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Germany
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2024, 05:09:27 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2024, 07:19:54 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US and only a small minority here would want a government that pushed it on us. We love Europe but we haven’t looked there for a sense of cultural identity for almost a century and we don’t envy its political models.  We’re not overly critical, but it’s just not us.

Americans are aware that some people see us as the worst. We disagree. And most honestly don't care what they think.

Vive la difference.
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

No I got your point. And my response is the same.

I can extend your analogy to parents (say, yours are intelligent and caring and mine are dumb and uninterested in me) and conclude it’s not fair: Over time it seems the resources available to the unfortunates in both our analogies are getting better and there are safety nets that help more now than in earlier times. But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality.

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2024, 07:29:39 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US and only a small minority here would want a government that pushed it on us. We love Europe but we haven’t looked there for a sense of cultural identity for almost a century and we don’t envy its political models.  We’re not overly critical, but it’s just not us.

Americans are aware that some people see us as the worst. We disagree. And most honestly don't care what they think.

Vive la difference.
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

No I got your point. And my response is the same.

I can extend your analogy to parents (say, yours are intelligent and caring and mine are dumb and uninterested in me) and conclude it’s not fair: Over time it seems the resources available to the unfortunates in both our analogies are getting better and there are safety nets that help more now than in earlier times. But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality.

You need to straighten out your understanding of equality vs equity before this could possibly make any sense.

Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?
November 5, 2020

While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.


https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2024, 07:40:52 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US and only a small minority here would want a government that pushed it on us. We love Europe but we haven’t looked there for a sense of cultural identity for almost a century and we don’t envy its political models.  We’re not overly critical, but it’s just not us.

Americans are aware that some people see us as the worst. We disagree. And most honestly don't care what they think.

Vive la difference.
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

No I got your point. And my response is the same.

I can extend your analogy to parents (say, yours are intelligent and caring and mine are dumb and uninterested in me) and conclude it’s not fair: Over time it seems the resources available to the unfortunates in both our analogies are getting better and there are safety nets that help more now than in earlier times. But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality.

You need to straighten out your understanding of equality vs equity before this could possibly make any sense.

Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?
November 5, 2020

While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.


https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

Thanks.

Same response.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Germany
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #31 on: December 09, 2024, 08:53:48 AM »
No I got your point. And my response is the same.
And it's still missing the point then because I am neither talking about equality nor equity. I am talking about calling something fair that isn't.

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #32 on: December 09, 2024, 09:16:19 AM »
No I got your point. And my response is the same.
And it's still missing the point then because I am neither talking about equality nor equity. I am talking about calling something fair that isn't.

I think your point was pretty clear. I simply added my own perspective. Thanks.

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #33 on: December 09, 2024, 09:20:09 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US and only a small minority here would want a government that pushed it on us. We love Europe but we haven’t looked there for a sense of cultural identity for almost a century and we don’t envy its political models.  We’re not overly critical, but it’s just not us.

Americans are aware that some people see us as the worst. We disagree. And most honestly don't care what they think.

Vive la difference.
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

No I got your point. And my response is the same.

I can extend your analogy to parents (say, yours are intelligent and caring and mine are dumb and uninterested in me) and conclude it’s not fair: Over time it seems the resources available to the unfortunates in both our analogies are getting better and there are safety nets that help more now than in earlier times. But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality.

You need to straighten out your understanding of equality vs equity before this could possibly make any sense.

Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?
November 5, 2020

While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.


https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/

Thanks.

Same response.

If you stand by this: But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality, you are mistaken.

The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment specifically addresses the issue of equality of opportunity, as it is colloquially referred to, and, since the amendment was adopted (1868) in the aftermath of the Civil War, its ramifications have touched every branch of government and the administrative state.
There are few clauses in the constitution that influence so many different aspects of governance in so many ways, so that the Equal Protection Clause and its implications may well be characterized as an ongoing major constitutional concern.
But it is not merely a governmental concern as the ongoing public discourse shows.

Equity, however, refers to equality/inequality in outcomes, particularly when evaluating persisting inequalities in average/median social group outcomes which indicate low generational social mobility.
The issue is that, while equity is not directly a constitutional concern, generational persistence of disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances in identifiable social groups might indicate a failure of equality of opportunity and thus fall under the Equal Protection Clause.

There are really only two ways to explain great differences in socioeconomic long term outcomes:
1. structural socioeconomic disadvantages affecting distinct social groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or,
2. essentialist explanations using supposedly low intelligence, general laziness, propensity to criminality, type of religion etc., to justify the plight socially disadvantaged groups find themselves in.

In a nutshell, if one sees generationally entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage as indicative of failure of assuring equal opportunity as stipulated in the Equal Protection Clause and its historic ramifications, one can argue that equity in light of the Equal Protection Clause can be seen as a constitutional concern, and thereby a government concern, because it may be indicative of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

In other words, persisting large differences in average social group socioeconomic outcomes might indicate violation of the equal protection clause unless one subscribes to essentialist (supremacist) ideologies.

So even if you change your false statement to: But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality equity, one could still make the case that unequitable average/median social group outcomes might indicate violations of the Equal Protection Clause, thus making equity an indirect governmental and constitutional concern.


The Equal Protection Clause

Ratified as it was after the Civil War in 1868, there is little doubt what the Equal Protection Clause was intended to do: stop states from discriminating against blacks. But the text of the Clause is worded very broadly and it has come a long way from its original purpose.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/702#the-equal-protection-clause
« Last Edit: December 09, 2024, 01:49:46 PM by PeteD01 »

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #34 on: December 09, 2024, 03:47:12 PM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

Different people have different conceptions of fairness. I personally do think that inequality in 'starting point' (e.g. due to bad access to schooling, or rich parents spoon-feeding children) is unfair, so I advocate for very well-funded schools plus an inheritance tax. However, I don't think that inequality in 'running ability' is unfair. If you're just very slow, or not very good at running, that's not a problem with the system. The system should still cater to you by having a safety net, but that's about it.

aasdfadsf

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #35 on: December 10, 2024, 09:45:55 AM »
I do not belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

RetireOrDieTrying

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Age: 55
  • Location: United States
  • Gallivantin' across the US
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #36 on: December 10, 2024, 09:51:32 AM »
I do not belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Without any disrespect, that is seriously the funniest thing I have read all day. LOL

RetireOrDieTrying

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
  • Age: 55
  • Location: United States
  • Gallivantin' across the US
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #37 on: December 10, 2024, 10:03:25 AM »
Once upon a time I was a fiscal-conservative, socially tolerant GOP denizen. Today, there is no trace whatsoever of fiscal sanity in either major U.S. party, and the GOP has run wildly to the right on social issues at the same time the Democrats have gone wildly left. It's like both major parties want to control my personal life - they just have different lists of things to impinge my personal liberty. I want to be left alone to live my adult life in peace any way I please.

The "big EL" Libertarians can't seem to come up with compelling candidates, and their foreign policy can be summed up as "roll up the sidewalks and isolate to become the next North Korea."

America's voting blocs don't seem to have any appetite for sound, prudent, restrained, competent administrative options. Everyone wants a shrill, inflexible, dogmatic crusader for <insert seemingly noble cause here>. The environment is so toxic that it's no surprise to me that people who would be GREAT, solid elected officials have no interest whatsoever in being drug through the mud.

So for me, right now... in the words of Richard Pryor in "Brewster's Millions"... none of the above. <le sigh>

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2024, 07:00:13 AM »
It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.

You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.

Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.

To use the picture of a marathon:

If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...

And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)

My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.

Different people have different conceptions of fairness. I personally do think that inequality in 'starting point' (e.g. due to bad access to schooling, or rich parents spoon-feeding children) is unfair, so I advocate for very well-funded schools plus an inheritance tax.

What concerns me a bit about this view of inequality is it perpetuates the divisive class war mentality that a subset of the left love to stoke. (This is the sin of the left that compares to the culture wars on the right—mostly meant to create a we-they mindset. The enemy within. Politicians LOVE enemies…)

I agree with offering ALL people a solid start with higher minimum standards for schools and would include government paid college-level education too. I also like school lunches and child care credits for those in need. The constant chipping away at poverty levels too—as we’ve been doing for decades—should continue to be a top goal. We are a rich society and no one should be forced into homelessness or go hungry.

But I think the knee-jerk criticism of the wealthy, significant inheritance taxes, taxes on NW or unrealized gains, etc. are over the top and—more importantly—do not make a better life for the lower middle class. There should be more emphasis on raising people up and less on taking people down. Going after “the rich” might feel good on some weird level, but it does not put 2 cars in anyone’s garage.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2024, 07:04:14 AM »
What concerns me a bit about this view of inequality is it perpetuates the divisive class war mentality that a subset of the left love to stoke. (This is the sin of the left that compares to the culture wars on the right—mostly meant to create a we-they mindset. The enemy within. Politicians LOVE enemies…)

I agree with offering ALL people a solid start with higher minimum standards for schools and would include government paid college-level education too. I also like school lunches and child care credits for those in need. The constant chipping away at poverty levels too—as we’ve been doing for decades—should continue to be a top goal. We are a rich society and no one should be forced into homelessness or go hungry.

But I think the knee-jerk criticism of the wealthy, significant inheritance taxes, taxes on NW or unrealized gains, etc. are over the top and—more importantly—do not make a better life for the lower middle class. There should be more emphasis on raising people up and less on taking people down. Going after “the rich” might feel good on some weird level, but it does not put 2 cars in anyone’s garage.

I think we are in heated agreement on most aspects here. I definitely think school lunches and anti-poverty programs are important. We should also aim to ensure that every gifted child can be streamed from as young an age as possible, and go to schools that allow him or her to skip grades, do high school/university level classes, and so on. The thing is, that money can't come from nowhere, and it's a lot fairer to tax inheritances than it is to tax income (particularly wage income). If we do that a bit better - and ensure everyone has a decent ability to run the race-  it also better legitimises the disparity in outcomes.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25501
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2024, 07:19:10 AM »
I do not belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Without any disrespect, that is seriously the funniest thing I have read all day. LOL

I lol'd

10dollarsatatime

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Utah
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2024, 08:03:35 AM »
I registered as a Republican because it's the only way to have any say on what goes on in Utah.  Once the primaries are over, I'm far more likely to vote Democrat or Third party.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4327
  • Location: Germany
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2024, 08:07:49 AM »
What concerns me a bit about this view of inequality is it perpetuates the divisive class war mentality that a subset of the left love to stoke. (This is the sin of the left that compares to the culture wars on the right—mostly meant to create a we-they mindset. The enemy within. Politicians LOVE enemies…)

I agree with offering ALL people a solid start with higher minimum standards for schools and would include government paid college-level education too. I also like school lunches and child care credits for those in need. The constant chipping away at poverty levels too—as we’ve been doing for decades—should continue to be a top goal. We are a rich society and no one should be forced into homelessness or go hungry.

But I think the knee-jerk criticism of the wealthy, significant inheritance taxes, taxes on NW or unrealized gains, etc. are over the top and—more importantly—do not make a better life for the lower middle class. There should be more emphasis on raising people up and less on taking people down. Going after “the rich” might feel good on some weird level, but it does not put 2 cars in anyone’s garage.

I think we are in heated agreement on most aspects here. I definitely think school lunches and anti-poverty programs are important. We should also aim to ensure that every gifted child can be streamed from as young an age as possible, and go to schools that allow him or her to skip grades, do high school/university level classes, and so on. The thing is, that money can't come from nowhere, and it's a lot fairer to tax inheritances than it is to tax income (particularly wage income). If we do that a bit better - and ensure everyone has a decent ability to run the race-  it also better legitimises the disparity in outcomes.
Since most is said I only want to put my fingers on 2 aspects:

A) Think less in money, more in stuff. Putting aside that I deeply wish nobody would need 2 cars: If there is a rich guy with 1000 cars and you take away 10 of them each year, that is 5 families who have their car need fulfilled, while the rich guy still increases his car count by 30 per year. That is not "taking down" someone!!

B) The bigger the distance between poor and rich, the higher the risk of very violent redistribution. That is something that has happened through literally all of history, and likely thousands of years of pre-history. It's in the Rich's own interest to level the field.

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2024, 08:09:39 AM »
Once upon a time I was a fiscal-conservative, socially tolerant GOP denizen. Today, there is no trace whatsoever of fiscal sanity in either major U.S. party, and the GOP has run wildly to the right on social issues at the same time the Democrats have gone wildly left. It's like both major parties want to control my personal life - they just have different lists of things to impinge my personal liberty. I want to be left alone to live my adult life in peace any way I please.

The "big EL" Libertarians can't seem to come up with compelling candidates, and their foreign policy can be summed up as "roll up the sidewalks and isolate to become the next North Korea."

America's voting blocs don't seem to have any appetite for sound, prudent, restrained, competent administrative options. Everyone wants a shrill, inflexible, dogmatic crusader for <insert seemingly noble cause here>. The environment is so toxic that it's no surprise to me that people who would be GREAT, solid elected officials have no interest whatsoever in being drug through the mud.

So for me, right now... in the words of Richard Pryor in "Brewster's Millions"... none of the above. <le sigh>

Can you share some examples of Democratic party proposals and policies that "want to control my personal life" and "impinge on my personal liberty"?

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2024, 08:10:56 AM »

What concerns me a bit about this view of inequality is it perpetuates the divisive class war mentality that a subset of the left love to stoke. (This is the sin of the left that compares to the culture wars on the right—mostly meant to create a we-they mindset. The enemy within. Politicians LOVE enemies…)

I agree with offering ALL people a solid start with higher minimum standards for schools and would include government paid college-level education too. I also like school lunches and child care credits for those in need. The constant chipping away at poverty levels too—as we’ve been doing for decades—should continue to be a top goal. We are a rich society and no one should be forced into homelessness or go hungry.

But I think the knee-jerk criticism of the wealthy, significant inheritance taxes, taxes on NW or unrealized gains, etc. are over the top and—more importantly—do not make a better life for the lower middle class. There should be more emphasis on raising people up and less on taking people down. Going after “the rich” might feel good on some weird level, but it does not put 2 cars in anyone’s garage.

How do you propose to pay for items like the above and other initiatives to chip away at poverty levels?

simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Midwest
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2024, 03:31:18 PM »
I do not belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Without any disrespect, that is seriously the funniest thing I have read all day. LOL

I lol'd
Will Rogers was funny in the 1800s, the 1900s, and still is today.

aasdfadsf

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2024, 09:52:12 PM »

Will Rogers was funny in the 1800s, the 1900s, and still is today.

Yes! It was driving me slightly crazy that I couldn't quite remember from whom I had stolen that quip. Will...someone. There are so many unfunny Wills out there.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2024, 10:01:43 PM »
Quote
There are really only two ways to explain great differences in socioeconomic long term outcomes:
1. structural socioeconomic disadvantages affecting distinct social groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or,
2. essentialist explanations using supposedly low intelligence, general laziness, propensity to criminality, type of religion etc., to justify the plight socially disadvantaged groups find themselves in.

Putting aside the fact that it could be a mix of 1 and 2 (and we should strive to counter any structural disadvantages falling into the first class), I don't see why this poster hand waves off the second class of explanations. This 'essentialist' thinking has three planks:

1. Certain traits (like intelligence, grit, work ethic, in-group altruism or conscientiousness) lead to better life outcomes in general (even though luck and pure chance can corrupt those outcomes);

2. The above traits, at least to some extent are either heritable, transmissible by parental behaviour, or both - this does not mean that they are causal, or that the correlation is perfect, or that the correlation occurs in all instances. It only has to be a slight correlation.

3. People usually form partnerships where their overall traits (e.g. height, intelligence, attractiveness) are closer to each other than a completely random pairing would produce.

If you accept each of the above 3 premises then there is going to be some 'essentialist' divergence in life outcomes. Happy for anyone to tell me which of the above 3 premises is wrong.

I also reject the notion there is anything 'supremacist' about the above notions. I would specifically reject any argument along racial lines, and (for the sake of clarity, though I should not even have to say this) I don't believe any differences in racial achievement are caused by the above - rather, they are caused by socioeconomic disparities falling under class 1 of the OP's schema. The issues caused by socio-economic disadvantage facing certain ethnic groups can blur results, but are independent of the above 'class 2' processes.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2024, 10:05:45 PM by twinstudy »

Ron Scott

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2024, 05:26:47 AM »
Quote
There are really only two ways to explain great differences in socioeconomic long term outcomes:
1. structural socioeconomic disadvantages affecting distinct social groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or,
2. essentialist explanations using supposedly low intelligence, general laziness, propensity to criminality, type of religion etc., to justify the plight socially disadvantaged groups find themselves in.
I don't believe any differences in racial achievement are caused by the above - rather, they are caused by socioeconomic disparities falling under class 1 of the OP's schema. The issues caused by socio-economic disadvantage facing certain ethnic groups can blur results, but are independent of the above 'class 2' processes.

The false dichotomy presented in the 1st quote above vastly oversimplifies complex societal issues, in part by deliberately ignoring huge, ongoing differences in outcomes consistently found WITHIN protected classes.

LOL, you’d do better to argue the differences are due to parenting skills. Even education explains more variance in outcome than class does in spite of the fact they’re correlated!

These kinds of arguments are at their core political, and serve to confuse and separate us far more than explain anything.

 

PeteD01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
Re: [US] What political party do you belong to/vote for?
« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2024, 05:30:36 AM »
Quote
There are really only two ways to explain great differences in socioeconomic long term outcomes:
1. structural socioeconomic disadvantages affecting distinct social groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or,
2. essentialist explanations using supposedly low intelligence, general laziness, propensity to criminality, type of religion etc., to justify the plight socially disadvantaged groups find themselves in.

Putting aside the fact that it could be a mix of 1 and 2 (and we should strive to counter any structural disadvantages falling into the first class), I don't see why this poster hand waves off the second class of explanations. This 'essentialist' thinking has three planks:

1. Certain traits (like intelligence, grit, work ethic, in-group altruism or conscientiousness) lead to better life outcomes in general (even though luck and pure chance can corrupt those outcomes);

2. The above traits, at least to some extent are either heritable, transmissible by parental behaviour, or both - this does not mean that they are causal, or that the correlation is perfect, or that the correlation occurs in all instances. It only has to be a slight correlation.

3. People usually form partnerships where their overall traits (e.g. height, intelligence, attractiveness) are closer to each other than a completely random pairing would produce.

If you accept each of the above 3 premises then there is going to be some 'essentialist' divergence in life outcomes. Happy for anyone to tell me which of the above 3 premises is wrong.

I also reject the notion there is anything 'supremacist' about the above notions. I would specifically reject any argument along racial lines, and (for the sake of clarity, though I should not even have to say this) I don't believe any differences in racial achievement are caused by the above - rather, they are caused by socioeconomic disparities falling under class 1 of the OP's schema. The issues caused by socio-economic disadvantage facing certain ethnic groups can blur results, but are independent of the above 'class 2' processes.

I think you missed that this is not about individual outcomes but generationally persistent inferior average/median outcomes (normally distributed/non-normally distributed economic variables).

Nothing I wrote is supposed to apply to individual outcomes and I've made that clear several times:


...

In a nutshell, if one sees generationally entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage as indicative of failure of assuring equal opportunity as stipulated in the Equal Protection Clause and its historic ramifications, one can argue that equity in light of the Equal Protection Clause can be seen as a constitutional concern, and thereby a government concern, because it may be indicative of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

In other words, persisting large differences in average social group socioeconomic outcomes might indicate violation of the equal protection clause unless one subscribes to essentialist (supremacist) ideologies.

So even if you change your false statement to: But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality equity, one could still make the case that unequitable average/median social group outcomes might indicate violations of the Equal Protection Clause, thus making equity an indirect governmental and constitutional concern.

...

So your criticism is entirely beside the point; and I repeat, nothing I wrote applies to individual outcomes.

To be blunt, you propose, in a rather convoluted way, that there are interindividual differences that may impact economic achievement and that these can be generationally transmitted. This is trivial and this nonsense is due to taking my quote out of context in a way that amounts to misquoting me.

Finding generationally persistent inferior average/median social group economic outcomes is suspect and attributing this divergence to unalterable group traits is essentialist and often racist.

I suspect that you did this intentionally to trip up the casual reader who does not go back to my original post - which you happen to have hidden by removing the link to my post:

...

There are really only two ways to explain great differences in socioeconomic long term outcomes:
1. structural socioeconomic disadvantages affecting distinct social groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or,
2. essentialist explanations using supposedly low intelligence, general laziness, propensity to criminality, type of religion etc., to justify the plight socially disadvantaged groups find themselves in.

...
« Last Edit: December 14, 2024, 04:48:32 PM by PeteD01 »