Fight Bigotry Without Government

[foxpaws]

To see how this works, suppose that male and female hot-dog salesmen are equally productive and that bigoted stadium concessionaires prefer to hire men. The bigger demand for male employees will raise men’s wages, meaning that the concessionaires will have to pay more to hire men than they would to hire equally productive women. The higher wages for men cause employers who insist on all-male workforces to be higher-cost producers. Unless customers are willing to pay more for a hot dog delivered by a man than by a woman, higher costs mean smaller profits.

I believe the answer to this analogy is Hooters...

 

[shagdrum]

Shag – just as one person dumping garbage into a water system does not, in ‘real life’ lead to eighty people dumping garbage into a water system. But you nonetheless regulate so not even one person can pollute, because of the damage many might cause, and the resulting lack of property rights to people downstream.

Pollution is an action that is relatively easy to prove. Discrimination is a thought process who's use is next to impossible to determine.

Besides, there can be, in the short term, economic incentive to pollute. There can NOT be any economic incentive to discriminate. In fact, the economic incentive structure in a free market discourages discrimination.

The fact is that you are implying that in a free market, discrimination will grow. However, the fact that the free market discourages discrimination has been explained in depth numerous times on this forum.

Unless you can show how a free market would create incentives to discriminate in the ways covered under the 1964 CRA, you have no argument.

I believe history in the south would contradict your ‘historical facts’ statement.

Yet you cannot show it. You can only speculate, talk in generalities and construct a false narrative that has been disproven with specific facts numerous times in this thread alone.

Supporting your false narrative by fallaciously claiming the market is too big and vague to know anything about rejects the entire science of economics; it is a deceptive, fallacious argument typically called Loki's Wager:

Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Loki is a trickster god in Norse mythology, who, legend has it, once made a bet with some dwarves. It was agreed that the prize, should Loki lose the wager, would be his head. Loki lost the bet, and in due time the dwarfs came to collect the head which had become rightfully theirs. Loki had no problem with giving up his head, but he insisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where the one ended and the other began. As a result, Loki keeps his head indefinitely, but loses his lips, as they were clearly part of the head which the dwarfs had complete rights to..

The fallacy's focus on over specification makes it in some ways the opposite of hasty generalization and could be considered an extreme form of equivocation.​

If you have to hinge your argument on deception, you have no argument.

as to historical fact, you seem to be ignoring some of what I posted.

This is from post #23:

...The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.​

This is from post #22:

The introduction of segregation laws for municipal streetcars is examined. The economics of private and public segregation is analyzed first, taking note of the particular features of the streetcar industry, followed by a discussion of the contemporary debates on streetcar segregation laws in a number of southern cities. The evidence presented suggests that segregation laws were binding constraints and not simply the codification of customary practice. Furthermore, the streetcar companies were not the initiators of segregation and sometimes actively resisted it. These findings are related to several major interpretations of the origins of segregation.​

There is no justification for you simply ignoring these points and/or dismissing them out of had. They are specific, disprovable claims that the burden of proof is on you to counter. To simply ignore them shows a lack of good faith and civility in discussing this as well as other things.

And with all your cut and paste about how ‘government’ was doing the discrimination – you need to remember that it was government at a very local level that started this – and that government very closely reflects the community it represents.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the historical facts show a different story. The government was not reflecting the majority of voters, but appeasing certain special interests; it was "not simply the codification of customary practice." It was social engineering, not a reflection of the community.

Those "cut and paste" segments that you mention make a very specific argument that is backed up with research, fact and logic. You are ignoring those segments and the arguments they make.

If you can't honestly confront the argument, having to ignore it instead, then you have no counterargument and show a lack of good faith or honesty in debate.

Shag, the voting majority in the south wanted discrimination/segregation. The laws were set up to please the voters.

Even if your baseless assertion is accepted as fact, implied in the point you are making is that only by leveraging the power of government was discrimination be institutionalized.

[

I]You seem to think that our government is some foreign object imposed on society rather than created by society itself. [/I]The society of the south created the government it wanted…

It is not an either/or proposition. At times the government can reflect society, at times it can look to impose it's will on society. In most affairs, it is a combination of both.

In the south, whites were willing to pay more to eat with only whites around, to ride in railroad cars with only whites, to stay at white only hotels, to watch movies with other whites.

This is nothing more then speculation. You have no facts that back this claim up.

Plus whites could also restrict the income of many blacks by controlling the opportunities available to them by limiting education, with 'separate but equal,' and blocking blacks from forming their own businesses because the banks were basically controlled by wealthy whites.

Again, speculation and drawing a false narrative. Unless you can provide fact that logically back up the narrative you are drawing (as opposed to simply being ambiguous in supporting either narrative).

The narrative you are drawing has had multiple specific facts and research that logically counter that narrative.

Simply ignoring those facts and repeating the narrative over and over is not an argument; except for a fallacious one. It shows a lack of honesty and a lack of good faith in your posts. Didn't take you long to revert back to form, eh?

 

[foxpaws]

Pollution is an action that is relatively easy to prove. Discrimination is a thought process who's use is next to impossible to determine.

I believe hanging a 'White Only' sign in your window can pretty much lead you to believe that is a form of discrimination. Why would you not think that? If you put 'No Women Allowed', I would pretty much state that is a discriminatory act.

Certainly I can't prove that the owner hates women, but his actions are discriminatory. I don't have to prove the 'thought process,' the action on its own is discriminatory (characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment) - correct?

Besides, there can be, in the short term, economic incentive to pollute. There can NOT be any economic incentive to discriminate. In fact, the economic incentive structure in a free market discourages discrimination.

The fact is that you are implying that in a free market, discrimination will grow. However, the fact that the free market discourages discrimination has been explained in depth numerous times on this forum.

Unless you can show how a free market would create incentives to discriminate in the ways covered under the 1964 CRA, you have no argument.

You are wrong shag, there can be plenty of economic incentive to discriminate. If you live in a small town in the south, populated by a large majority of white bigots, hanging a sign that says 'white only' will certainly benefit you in the short run - and perhaps in the long run as well. Many small towns in the south still have racism problems, it hasn't gone away just because a law was passed (as we have both agreed to in the past). If a white bigot can sit with other white bigots, knowing that he won't have to endure the presence of a black man, he will gladly pay an extra dollar for his hamburger. That is common sense.

Don't you think that a restaurant in Arizona right now that put up a sign "No Illegals - American Owned for Americans Only" might see a huge increase in business? I think it would see a big increase. I can see Stossell sitting at the counter now...

Yet you cannot show it. You can only speculate, talk in generalities and construct a false narrative that has been disproven with specific facts numerous times in this thread alone.

Shag - your 'facts' are suppositions, not facts. You can only speculate as well. There is nothing that would conclusively say that by returning to an era of private business discrimination that discrimination that would infringe on the rights of others wouldn't happen again.

Or can you some how guarantee that shag?

You can't. Models are one thing - real life is another. And real life took the road of discrimination in the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s in the south.

Inuits could easily be discriminated in Alaska with majority rule. People with brown skin could easily be discriminated against in the southwest. Probably not on a large scale, but certainly in pockets.

Supporting your false narrative by fallaciously claiming the market is too big and vague to know anything about rejects the entire science of economics; it is a deceptive, fallacious argument typically called Loki's Wager - is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

If you have to hinge your argument on deception, you have no argument.

Odd that you find that it is OK that Hayek uses the same argument against government intervention in the market - that it is too big and vague... that we can't be at all places at all times with all knowledge in the market, so hands off.

Isn't that correct? Or do I have Hayek wrong? I would really like to know this one shag. Isn't this basically what 'division of knowledge', its dispersion among masses of people is basically saying?

I am not deceiving, I am stating pretty much a basic fact, we don't know for a certainty what the market will do, if we did, you and I would be rather wealthy at this point shag.

This is from post #23:

...The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.​

<snip>
There is no justification for you simply ignoring these points and/or dismissing them out of had. They are specific, disprovable claims that the burden of proof is on you to counter. To simply ignore them shows a lack of good faith and civility in discussing this as well as other things.

No shag, you bring up only one example, the only example where the economics of segregation made little sense. Transportation. If you were a railroad company and had one car, one-half full of whites and one car, one-half full of blacks it was a stupid way to run a railroad (or street car or bus company). But in all other instances it makes sense for segregation to occur. Costs are minimal, restroom and separate entrances, or perhaps disallowing blacks entirely. Restaurants, theaters, stores all were for this, it made their rich, white customers happy. Who do you want to make sure comes back to your restaurant - the rich white family or the poor black family?

So, other than the rather obvious business of transportation, where was the backlash by theater owners, hotel owners? There isn't any shag - because the economics favored segregation in those businesses. You have cherry picked one business, the south was more than transportation. It was the Atlanta Hotel, it was Woolworths, it was the Regal Theater and the Birmingham Drumstick Restaurant Little League Team.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the historical facts show a different story. The government was not reflecting the majority of voters, but appeasing certain special interests; it was "not simply the codification of customary practice." It was social engineering, not a reflection of the community.

Those "cut and paste" segments that you mention make a very specific argument that is backed up with research, fact and logic. You are ignoring those segments and the arguments they make.

Shag - where in goodness name did you get the idea that local government isn't a reflection of the voters? Where did you get this idea of 'social engineering'? If the government wasn't a reflection of the people it represented how did it hold on to generations of 'rule'.

Shag - that is just foolish - of course the local government in the south reflected its constituency - they had decades of opportunity to 'vote them out' and they didn't.

It is common sense, the whites in the south after slavery feared a strong black community - and since the whites were in the majority it was easy to create a society where blacks remained subjugated - it was an exact reflection of the south before the war.

If you can't honestly confront the argument, having to ignore it instead, then you have no counterargument and show a lack of good faith or honesty in debate.

I am very honestly confronting the argument shag - you aren't. The effects of one person polluting are just like the results of one business discriminating, negligible. However the results of many people polluting are just like the results of many businesses discriminating, infringing on rights.

You haven't addressed that shag - why?

Even if your baseless assertion is accepted as fact, implied in the point you are making is that only by leveraging the power of government was discrimination be institutionalized.

Not only shag - but along with... even without Jim Crow laws many businesses remained segregated, small businesses weren't heavily regulated by Jim Crow laws. It is what the south was comfortable with - they had a couple of centuries of tradition to draw on.

It is not an either/or proposition. At times the government can reflect society, at times it can look to impose it's will on society. In most affairs, it is a combination of both.

Shag, what is it in a democracy? It is created by society itself. It is a reflection of us. If it isn't - why do we have it, and not scrap it for something else?

This is nothing more then speculation. You have no facts that back this claim up.

You can even see it today shag - white people are willing to pay more for a house in a white suburb than pay perhaps hundreds of thousands of less for the exact same house in an 'equal' black neighborhood. This isn't speculation. Whites are willing to pay more for segregated private schools, for exclusive neighborhoods, private clubs. It is not speculation, it is fact, and it is still present in modern day America.

Again, speculation and drawing a false narrative. Unless you can provide fact that logically back up the narrative you are drawing (as opposed to simply being ambiguous in supporting either narrative).

No shag - separate but equal was all about keeping blacks down. Have you ever read anything about Thurgood Marshall or all of the black law colleges that spent years training black lawyers to defeat 'separate but equal'? If you haven't I would recommend Simple Justice: The History Of Brown v. Board Of Education And Black America's Struggle For Equality. I would have thought you were pretty familiar with this - it was in Topeka... It is well documented that separate but equal didn't work, continued black oppression in the south, and certainly isn't speculation on my part.

All you have shown is speculation that it wouldn't happen again.... Your sources are not 'hard fact', are they?

The narrative you are drawing has had multiple specific facts and research that logically counter that narrative.

Simply ignoring those facts and repeating the narrative over and over is not an argument; except for a fallacious one. It shows a lack of honesty and a lack of good faith in your posts. Didn't take you long to revert back to form, eh?

Have you ever read about Du Bois’s color line? You might want to familiarize yourself with it. The color line defined racial lines not just in public spaces, such as theaters, restaurants and railroad cars, it defined racial lines at work. The color line was about 'servitude' and black employment. Because of the long history of racism in the south it was unacceptable for a black to be placed in a position of authority over a white. So, whites would willingly patronize black barbers, but refuse the services of black physicians or attorneys. The former entailed no loss of white superiority or authority; the latter did. The same for employment where there were blacks and whites - such as a factory. A black could never rise even to manager - that would place him in authority over whites. Unacceptable in the south.

You don't understand the racial atmosphere of the south...

Economics, or markets, are intertwined with other aspects of our society, such as social mores, behavior, preferences and religious convictions to name just a few. Economics is power, and the white business owners/politicians in the South knew that. They worked with not only controlling the 'market' but also working with keeping the social behavior such that blacks were second class citizens. Shag, you always act like the market doesn't take into account other things. That the market would level the playing field. It doesn't act alone, it functions within a society, reflecting that society to some extent. Just like government.

It’s always interesting seeing the strong telling the weak what’s best for them, because it almost always excludes the possibility of the strong giving up anything. To apply your faith that the market will eventually do the right thing shag, aren’t you saying that blacks simply should have waited for society to reach a point where black boycotts would have worked, however long that might have been. A month? Three years? Four decades? It’s all the same as far as you are concerned, so long as the right outcome eventually occurs. For a young black woman, the ‘right outcome will eventually happen’ isn’t any outcome at all except the wrong one. And if we go back to allowing discrimination, you can’t say that the wrong outcome is down the road, at least for a time… you have not one ‘guarantee’.

 

[shagdrum]

With regard to the narrative foxy is drawing in this thread, there are three concepts that people need to keep in mind; Marxist exploitation theory, critical theory and postmodernism.

Marx’ exploitation theory obviously extends from the writings of Marx in the 19th century. It is a theory of social relation that views the working class (proletariat) as, essentially, the slaves of the capitalists or owners of the “means of production” (bourgeoisie). The bourgeoisie make their wealth by exploiting the proletariat. In fact, in Marx’ view capitalism is the, “exploitation of the nominally free labor of others” (Das Kapital; Chapter 32). Under this view, the structure of capitalist society is aimed at keeping the proletariat oppressed. Not to go into too much detail, but this theory is inherently flawed because is premised on certain economic assumptions and theories of social relations that have long since been disproven and generally discredited. However, that basic theory of exploitation that Marx saw in the relationship of the proletariat and the bourgeosisie (especially with regards to the economic and legal structure being used as a tool to keep certain people oppressed) is an emotionally appealing narrative and has the strong rhetorical effect of morally de-legitimizing the supposed “exploiters”. Critical Theory expands on this concept.

Critical theory is a normative philosophical approach (as opposed to a positive approach) that can best be explained in this passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer 1982, 244). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.​

In many ways, critical theory expands Marx' exploitation theory to other social interactions besides the proletariat/bourgeoisie interaction. Just as Marx' writings espoused the liberation of the "oppressed" proletariat, so to do critical theorists espouse the liberation of others who are oppressed. While there may be some truth to some of these claims, the theory is premised on many of the same flawed and discredited notions that makes many of these analyzes inherently flawed and misleading.

Here is another passage from that same link that is very prescient:

It follows from Horkheimer's definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation. Any truly critical theory of society, as Horkheimer further defined it in his writings as Director of the Frankfurt School's Institute for Social Research, “has as its object human beings as producers of their own historical form of life” (Horkeimer 1993, 21). In light of the practical goal of identifying and overcoming all the circumstances that limit human freedom, the explanatory goal could be furthered only through interdisciplinary research that includes psychological, cultural, and social dimensions, as well as institutional forms of domination. Given the emphasis among the first generation of Critical Theory on human beings as the self-creating producers of their own history, a unique practical aim of social inquiry suggests itself: to transform contemporary capitalism into a consensual form of social life. For Horkheimer a capitalist society could be transformed only by becoming more democratic, to make it such that “all conditions of social life that are controllable by human beings depend on real consensus” in a rational society (Horkheimer 1982, 249–250). The normative orientation of Critical Theory, at least in its form of critical social inquiry, is therefore towards the transformation of capitalism into a “real democracy” in which such control could be exercised (Horkheimer 1982, 250).​

An important point to remember is that critical theory is inherently normative. Unlike a positive theory, a normative theory does not seek to simply understand social phenomena as they are, but promotes a transformation of society toward an ideal. Critical theory can often take this to the extreme; where the ends justify the means.

As has already been pointed out, the exploitation narrative is very emotionally appealing and a very strong rhetorical tool to de-legitimize a group, morally. In promoting that narrative, many have taken to rejecting truth in favor of historical revisionism (Howard Zinn) to make the truth fit the narrative. Which leads me to postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a relatively recent approach that is built upon the rejection of objective truth. It, “can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning [equivocation and parsing].” Essentially it is a rhetorical approach that eschews wisdom for creativity and turns intellectual dishonesty into a virtue.

Postmodernists often,"emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial."

Postmodernism is focused on obfuscating, rationalizing the irrational and de-legitimizing (through dishonest means) opposing viewpoints and approaches. It is the epitome of the mindless anti-establishment view; the ultimate selfish intellectual approach. The truth doesn't matter, what matters making the truth fit the narrative.

In focusing on "power relations" (among other things), postmodernism is a very effective rhetorical approach to promoting the exploitation narrative.

Considering this country's history with race relation, specifically concerning slavery, Jim Crow and discrimination, the exploitation narrative as explained through postmodernism in that context is especially potent. It is a very effective means of dividing people and marginalizing certain points of view.

When you combine those ideas in relation to the current debate of the Civil Rights Act and the broader focus on racism and slavery in the south, you get something like this:

Have you ever read about Du Bois’s color line? You might want to familiarize yourself with it. The color line defined racial lines not just in public spaces, such as theaters, restaurants and railroad cars, it defined racial lines at work. The color line was about 'servitude' and black employment. Because of the long history of racism in the south it was unacceptable for a black to be placed in a position of authority over a white. So, whites would willingly patronize black barbers, but refuse the services of black physicians or attorneys. The former entailed no loss of white superiority or authority; the latter did. The same for employment where there were blacks and whites - such as a factory. A black could never rise even to manager - that would place him in authority over whites. Unacceptable in the south.

You don't understand the racial atmosphere of the south...

Economics, or markets, are intertwined with other aspects of our society, such as social mores, behavior, preferences and religious convictions to name just a few. Economics is power, and the white business owners/politicians in the South knew that. They worked with not only controlling the 'market' but also working with keeping the social behavior such that blacks were second class citizens. Shag, you always act like the market doesn't take into account other things. That the market would level the playing field. It doesn't act alone, it functions within a society, reflecting that society to some extent. Just like government.

It’s always interesting seeing the strong telling the weak what’s best for them, because it almost always excludes the possibility of the strong giving up anything. To apply your faith that the market will eventually do the right thing shag, aren’t you saying that blacks simply should have waited for society to reach a point where black boycotts would have worked, however long that might have been. A month? Three years? Four decades? It’s all the same as far as you are concerned, so long as the right outcome eventually occurs. For a young black woman, the ‘right outcome will eventually happen’ isn’t any outcome at all except the wrong one. And if we go back to allowing discrimination, you can’t say that the wrong outcome is down the road, at least for a time… you have not one ‘guarantee’.

This is a clear case of perpetuating the exploitation narrative through postmodernist means. You have the focus on power relations and using economics to oppress ("Economics is power, and the white business owners/politicians in the South knew that."). There is also a subtle "destabilization" of concepts (specifically in economics and the libertarian argument for free markets) in claiming that "faith" is put in "the market" to "do the right thing", or in vaguely claiming, "you always act like the market doesn't take into account other things". Both of these claims inherently misrepresent the ideas in question; setting up straw men.

There is also a subtle attempt to reframe the debate in many ways including talking about going "back to allowing discrimination" which deceptively injects the premise that the CRA, and only the CRA ended discrimination in the areas of focus in this debate without that premise being consciously accepted.

The fact that foxy's entire argument intentionally avoids confronting the merits of the counter argument by making excuses to dismiss specific facts, research and/or analysis, ignoring those specifics and/or misrepresenting opposing arguments is worth noting. If someone is not honestly confronting an argument on it's merits then that person is not approaching the argument in good faith.

Foxy's narrative is based purely in assertion backed up by supposition and then defended through rhetorical evasion of the merits of opposing arguments.

Another thing to consider is the Delphi technique and branding certain people and/or viewpoints as racist:

A specialized use of [the Delphi] technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.​

Using this technique to slowly ostracize the Rand Paul/tea party/small government/free market viewpoint by branding them as racist can be very effective in small groups, like this political forum.

IMO, there may also be something to this technique with foxy's approach to the political section of this forum generally and it's dynamics.

 

[foxpaws]

Much stuff about marxism, critical thought, post modernism....

<snip>

While there may be some truth to some of these claims, the theory is premised on many of the same flawed and discredited notions that makes many of these analyzes inherently flawed and misleading.

However, since shag can't come up with a good response to why discrimination in private business has been proven to be, and most likely will be a bad idea in the future, obviously in this case my response falls into this fuzzy 'some truth to some of these claims'....

An important point to remember is that critical theory is inherently normative. Unlike a positive theory, a normative theory does not seek to simply understand social phenomena as they are, but promotes a transformation of society toward an ideal. Critical theory can often take this to the extreme; where the ends justify the means.

However in this case - where men like Stossel and Shag and Cal and Paul believe that the justice of exclusion is more 'just' than the justice of inclusion, is an extreme all on its own. What ends are they trying to justify?

Postmodernism is focused on obfuscating, rationalizing the irrational and de-legitimizing (through dishonest means) opposing viewpoints and approaches. It is the epitome of the mindless anti-establishment view; the ultimate selfish intellectual approach. The truth doesn't matter, what matters making the truth fit the narrative.

In focusing on "power relations" (among other things), postmodernism is a very effective rhetorical approach to promoting the exploitation narrative.

Shag can't answer things like when I point out that he cherry picks (such as transportation being the one large business model that protested Jim Crow laws), that he can't deny that markets aren't 'pure' and indeed also reflect society's mores and values or lack of values, he can't deny that democratic governments are made 'by the people' and that they represent the majority of the people, that we live in a world where there would be companies that would discriminate, thrive, and create instances where the rights of those being discriminated could be put in jeopardy, he falls back to labeling me and my perfectly good, concise, sourced arguments as nothing but postmodernist, critical thought, marxist bunk.

Needless to say, shag has yet to answer any of the things I have given him. Even the most easily understood 'you don't let one discriminate, because you can't answer for what the many might do'.

I answered his 'transportation' fallacy, the 'market will take care of the discrimination problem on its own' fallacy (I thought it pretty good to turn Hayek on you there Shag...), the 'it is the government's fault' fallacy, the 'they won't pay for discrimination' fallacy, the 'majority won't hold back the minority' fallacy.

So, I pretty much took care of most of his arguments right there, but obviously he doesn't have to respond to anything there. He can't even respond to the fact that the market doesn't exist in a vacuum, one of the very basic issues here. Bigotry may be rewarded, he, nor the market can in anyway say with a certainty that won't happen.

There is also a subtle attempt to reframe the debate in many ways including talking about going "back to allowing discrimination" which deceptively injects the premise that the CRA, and only the CRA ended discrimination in the areas of focus in this debate without that premise being consciously accepted.

So, now shag - OK, this really is interesting - you think it would be OK to repeal the entirety of the CRA now - that it basically didn't do anything? That eventually between the sit ins, MLK, peace protests, et al, that the south would have been just fine, and that the feds should have backed off?

The fact that foxy's entire argument intentionally avoids confronting the merits of the counter argument by making excuses to dismiss specific facts, research and/or analysis, ignoring those specifics and/or misrepresenting opposing arguments is worth noting. If someone is not honestly confronting an argument on it's merits then that person is not approaching the argument in good faith.

Shag, I countered your arguments, just because you ignore your own cherry picking, ignore the fact that Hayek is on my side here, that you dismiss the fact that a democratic government indeed is a reflection of the people it serves, that markets don't function in a vacuum, I could basically say that you haven't approached this debate at all. You have yet to answer the very basic idea here - do you allow businesses to discriminate when the outcome could be the loss of liberty? It may not be, but, you can't say that for a certainty, because you can't say for a certainty what the market will do.

But I can say with a certainty one thing - within the market the rich have many votes, whereas the poor have few. This really opens the door for discrimination to flourish within the 'free' market.

Foxy's narrative is based purely in assertion backed up by supposition and then defended through rhetorical evasion of the merits of opposing arguments.

That is you shag - you assume that the market will behave in a certain fashion - but when I keep asking for that 'guarantee' you can't give it to me, because there is nothing certain about the market, except its uncertainty. Your sources 'suppose' that certain things would happen in the market that would make discriminatory policies unfavorable, but that is only if you take this as a 'pure' market - it isn't, it has to deal with humans, their flaws, their weaknesses. The market will reflect that, it is just as 'human' as the people who make it up.

Another thing to consider is the Delphi technique and branding certain people and/or viewpoints as racist...
<snip>
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
<snip>
Using this technique to slowly ostracize the Rand Paul/tea party/small government/free market viewpoint by branding them as racist is a very effective technique in small groups, like this political forum.

IMO, there may also be something to this technique with foxy's approach to the political section of this forum generally and it's dynamics.

Whoa shag, I am an art tart. Psychological manipulation - you have got to be kidding... Now you have resorted to some strange, delusional idea that I am secretly involved in group manipulation, that I can predict what people will do? What? That the idea that I might have something here - with regards to discrimination and the fact that Title II is a darn good idea, has merit, and if repealed could leave us open to repeating problems we have had in the past - is so antithesis to your 'win at all costs' dynamic that you would resort to some strange theory that I am pulling the strings here?

Well, this is certainly a new one.. some of the most original grasping at straws I have ever seen.

 

[shagdrum]

And now we get to the war of attrition part of foxy's argument, where she simply continues to misrepresent, ignore key points and generally obfuscate/muddy the waters to attempt to de-legimtimize the opposing view instead of honestly confronting the views on it's merits. If someone attempt to honestly counter her arguments and engage her in an honest conversation, she simply continues with the dishonest obfuscation until the person gets frustrated and leaves. This allows her the opportunity to claim her argument ruled the day, when in fact it was the frustration that she created that lead the other person(s) to leave the thread. She can also leverage that frustration (and the actions that stem from it) to ostracize and reinforce the false narrative that she draws about those whom she targets.

since shag can't come up with a good response to why discrimination in private business has been proven to be, and most likely will be a bad idea in the future, obviously in this case my response falls into this fuzzy 'some truth to some of these claims'....

This statement inherently changes the focus of the debate and reframes it into a "Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" situation. If her "challenge" is not met, they she can claim victory and leverage that to marginalize opposing views, if an attempt to meet her challenge is made, the false premises that her claim rests on is accepted.

Her claim here inherently assumes that discrimination of private business was ended by the CRA and could not have been reduces by any other means. This ignores the fact that a free market creates an incentive structure that systematically eliminates discrimination (of the kind under examination) in the free market. That point has been showed in specified detail and proven numerous times in this thread. Instead of acknowledging those argument and honestly confronting them on their merits, as someone discussing things in good faith would do, foxy makes excuses to avoid those arguments; instead attempting to de-legitimize the fundamental concepts the arguments are based on, ignoring key parts of the argument, misrepresenting the argument and changing the focus of the debate.

However in this case - where men like Stossel and Shag and Cal and Paul believe that the justice of exclusion is more 'just' than the justice of inclusion, is an extreme all on its own. What ends are they trying to justify?

As, has been pointed out, postmodernists focus on destabilizing and distorting language and the traditional understanding of concepts and notions toward their own ends. Here foxy is doing precisely that with the idea of "justice" by creating a false dichotomy of a "justice of exclusion" and a "justice of inclusion". Justice has nothing to do with inclusion or exclusion. There is the more traditional view of justice as a process and a more modern, egalitarian view of justice as being results or outcome oriented. Creating a dichotomy of "inclusion" and "exclusion" is simply opportunistic equivocation rooted in baseless supposition to corrupt the idea of justice to fit her argument.

This passage also subtly misrepresents the views of the people she is attacking by suggesting they view a "separate but equal" approach as "just" when none of the people mentioned, in any way, support such a notion. However, it is an effective rhetorical tactic to make her opponents appear, "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic".

Shag can't answer things like when I point out that he cherry picks (such as transportation being the one large business model that protested Jim Crow laws), that he can't deny that markets aren't 'pure' and indeed also reflect society's mores and values or lack of values,

Again, this ties back to the postmodernist approach to destabilize and discredit traditional concepts and understandings toward what is convenient to the postmodernist's argument. This time foxy is focusing on distorting the entire concept of economics in general and Hayek's ideas concerning the division of knowledge specifically (see her previous post, post #28, where she talks about Hayek's "division of knowledge").

Foxy is claiming that economics is so subjective that it is too vague to make predictions. Ignoring the fact that this would nullify her prediction of discrimination becoming more prevalent under a more free market, her argument her is an almost textbook example of the fallacy of Loki's Wager:

Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Loki is a trickster god in Norse mythology, who, legend has it, once made a bet with some dwarves.[1] It was agreed that the prize, should Loki lose the wager, would be his head. Loki lost the bet, and in due time the dwarfs came to collect the head which had become rightfully theirs. Loki had no problem with giving up his head, but he insisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where the one ended and the other began. As a result, Loki keeps his head indefinitely, but loses his lips, as they were clearly part of the head which the dwarfs had complete rights to.

The fallacy's focus on over specification makes it in some ways the opposite of hasty generalization and could be considered an extreme form of equivocation.​

In reference to Hayek, Foxy is playing off of peoples ignorance of his idea's to add a false credibility to her own argument. However, she is misapplying Hayek's ideas.

Hayek's argument was against the notion of a command and control economy where precise knowledge of the quantity of all the goods that every part of society needs (demand) and precise knowledge the quantity that can be produced (supply) is necessary as well as a means to make sense of all that information nearly instantaniously by a central authority. Hayek argued that a central authority was incapable of containing and making sense of all the precise knowledge necessary to run an entire economy. In Hayek's view, the free market was more efficient because that knowledge was divided up to the people with the immediate ability to act. They don't have full knowledge, but they have enough knowledge (and the means to make sense of their limited knowledge) to be able to make reasonable decisions that are ultimately efficient for the entire economy. In Hayek's view, the price mechanism is one of the primary means of conveying and making sense of various diverse and complex information necessary in making those decision. That was Hayek's division of knowledge argument.

Hayek NEVER suggested that the economy was so vague and subjective that one couldn't have even a general understanding of how it functions, what factors are involved and what incentive structures it creates. However, that is the argument foxy is making and citing Hayek's arguments as supporting relying on an ignorance of the Hayek's arguments as well as supposition on her part to tie Hayek to her argument.

Hayek's view was that one can look to history, analyze the facts and data and draw reasonably inferences (which can be tested against historical data or new data) to empirically confirm or deny those inferences; a positive approach (attempting to understand how things are, as opposed to how they should be). That basic view is what any and every economist holds. In ignoring that fact and claiming that economics is to vague to understand, foxy is, by inference, rejecting the entire science of economics.

The point about markets not being "pure" also serves to delegitimize the entire science of economics even though, despite the inference she is drawing, that science takes those other factors that she cites as making the market "impure" into account. The "cherry picking" point is a disingenuous notion used to reinforce the false narrative she is drawing in her attempt marginalize me (remember the Delphi technique).

Delegitimizing the entire concept of economics is a very useful means of avoiding economic realities that are inconvenient to your narrative. The fact that the free market creates an incentive structure that systematically eliminates discrimination in the markets is fatal to her exploitation narrative. Unfortunately, economics is almost always incompatible with the exploitation narrative because that narrative is premised on a flawed and simplistic understanding of economics that has long ago been discredited. Therefore, when that incompatibility is pointed out, it is necessary to delegitimize economics to promote that narrative.

Instead of confronting the reality of economic incentives which fatally contradict her narrative, foxy instead has to circumvent that point by discrediting the entire science of economics in general and by making excuses to avoid the specific points raised against her narrative in the area of economic incentives.

he can't deny that democratic governments are made 'by the people' and that they represent the majority of the people, that we live in a world where there would be companies that would discriminate, thrive, and create instances where the rights of those being discriminated could be put in jeopardy...

Now foxy is relying on the tried and true tactic of critical theorists and postmodernists of historical revision. America is not, nor ever has been a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. That is not an insignificant distinction because by being a republic (representative democracy) a number of methods of corruption are interjected into the mix.

This is how you get laws like Obamacare which the majority of the populace unquestionably did not want. Under the dynamic Foxy is drawing, that would be impossible.

Foxy is ignoring the possibility that laws can be forced on the people and not always simply a reflection of the people. Instead of confronting the merits of the claims made by scholars cited in this thread, foxy has to make more excuses to avoid those point; she is dodging.

She is also still perpetuating the idea that private businesses would, left to their own devices, foster discrimination. As has been pointed out, this has not been accepted and has in fact specifically been contradicted with empirical evidence that she can only dance around and make excuses to avoid directly and honestly confronting.

Whoa shag, I am an art tart. Psychological manipulation - you have got to be kidding... Now you have resorted to some strange, delusional idea that I am secretly involved in group manipulation, that I can predict what people will do? What? That the idea that I might have something here - with regards to discrimination and the fact that Title II is a darn good idea, has merit, and if repealed could leave us open to repeating problems we have had in the past - is so antithesis to your 'win at all costs' dynamic that you would resort to some strange theory that I am pulling the strings here?

Well, this is certainly a new one.. some of the most original grasping at straws I have ever seen.

Once again, here is how the Delphi technique can be used to manipulate and deceive:

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.​

Foxy intentionally injects false notions about me and others that she knows are inaccurate and I know she knows this both from private communications as well as our history publicly on this forum. However, the notions seem plausible enough to those who either don't know any better or are predisposed to agreeing with her political point of view and have a bitterness toward those of us they disagree with them that overrides objectivity. She then subtly reinforces that narrative at any opportunity by spinning and misrepresenting the actions of those who are the focus of her false narrative.

Her "war of attrition" approach in debate serves to manipulatively frustrate and enrage her opposition which, falsely, gives her lies about the person more credibility (or opportunities to spin actions to reinforce her lies) and ends up with the person leaving the thread. Combining that passive aggressive approach with an innocent, off-hand "aw, shucks" sensibility serves to further hide her manipulation.

Weather she is consciously using this technique or simply stumbled upon it, a lot of the means of manipulation which are employed in the Alinsky Method/Delphi Technique are being employing by her on this forum.

 

[foxpaws]

And now we get to the war of attrition part of foxy's argument, where she simply continues to misrepresent, ignore key points and generally obfuscate/muddy the waters to attempt to de-legimtimize the opposing view instead of honestly confronting the views on it's merits. If someone attempt to honestly counter her arguments and engage her in an honest conversation, she simply continues with the dishonest obfuscation until the person gets frustrated and leaves. This allows her the opportunity to claim her argument ruled the day, when in fact it was the frustration that she created that lead the other person(s) to leave the thread. She can also leverage that frustration (and the actions that stem from it) to ostracize and reinforce the false narrative that she draws about those whom she targets.

So, in other words – Shag, you really don’t have answers to my points – correct?

Here are the points I have made, that either counter shag’s points, or he hasn’t answered…

1. Other than transportation (which segregation arguably did cause a bad business model) which you 'cherry picked' show us where other business such as hotels, restaurants, theaters, complained about the segregation laws.

Shags answer…

The "cherry picking" point is a disingenuous notion used to reinforce the false narrative she is drawing in her attempt marginalize me (remember the Delphi technique).

Ah, so we don’t have any other examples – so lets find some way to discredit this. It isn’t marginalizing shag, it is the truth. Other businesses didn’t fight Jim Crow laws because many of them thought they improved their businesses and legitimized their prejudices as well.

2. Show how the market is 'pure' and indeed doesn’t reflect society's mores and values or lack of values.

Shags answer…

The point about markets not being "pure" also serves to delegitimize the entire science of economics even though, despite the inference she is drawing, that science takes those other factors that she cites as making the market "impure" into account.

Notice how he doesn’t answer the very viable point that the market reflects society. It does. Youth has money, market bends to the young. Whites are a majority, the market accommodates. The example he quotes doesn’t take those societal factors into account – they also don’t take into account that we are by nature somewhat bigoted. If the market starts to reinforce that attribute, we know exactly where it will lead – to the segregation and the discrimination of the south. I have history on my side – actual events of what will happen when we discriminate, not only here, but around the world. The market doesn’t work in a vacuum, and nothing that shag has put forth addresses the societal issues when it comes to discrimination, especially on local microeconomics (if in a small town, or in a confined area, there are a lot of bigots, a segregated business model, or exclusionary business model could be very successful).

He never really answered that in the market the rich have many votes and the poor have few. You need a government oversight here because the market is quite far from a democracy, or even republic.

3. Guarantee that the market will take care of the problems regarding removing liberties that will arise from allowing discrimination in the private sector. That there won’t be a ‘market for bigotry’, and in some areas of the country, probably a very successful market that caters to this group.

Shags answer...

Her claim here inherently assumes that discrimination of private business was ended by the CRA and could not have been reduces by any other means. This ignores the fact that a free market creates an incentive structure that systematically eliminates discrimination (of the kind under examination) in the free market. That point has been showed in specified detail and proven numerous times in this thread. Instead of acknowledging those argument and honestly confronting them on their merits, as someone discussing things in good faith would do, foxy makes excuses to avoid those arguments; instead attempting to de-legitimize the fundamental concepts the arguments are based on, ignoring key parts of the argument, misrepresenting the argument and changing the focus of the debate.

So, the answer is he can’t guarantee it – he has market models to go by, he has that the supposition that the market will create an incentive structure that will eliminate discrimination, but what he doesn’t have is history on his side, nor does he have a guarantee. He can’t. You cannot guarantee what the market will do. Shag knows that, Hayek knows that. What I can do is show you is Title II which will guarantee that private business will not be allowed to discriminate. This isn’t some sort of hypothetical study here shag, we are talking about people’s lives, people who could have very basic liberties taken from them if private sector business is allowed to discriminate.

4. The people create governments and they represent the majority of the people, therefore the Jim Crow laws were in fact a reflection of the people at that time, in that place.

Shags answer…

Foxy is ignoring the possibility that laws can be forced on the people and not always simply a reflection of the people. Instead of confronting the merits of the claims made by scholars cited in this thread, foxy has to make more excuses to avoid those point; she is dodging.

She is also still perpetuating the idea that private businesses would, left to their own devices, foster discrimination. As has been pointed out, this has not been accepted and has in fact specifically been contradicted with empirical evidence that she can only dance around and make excuses to avoid directly and honestly confronting.

I find this one especially odd, since you are so for states’ rights shag. In the past you have argued that the Feds shouldn’t have as much control because they are removed from the populace, it is state and local government, which best reflect the will and needs of the people. At local government, where most of the Jim Crow laws originated you are very close to a democracy – local governments very much reflect the local populace. You have argued that over and over again in the ‘against big government’ threads. Now you abandon that idea? Why? So you can just blame the government and claim that private business is ‘lily white’ when it comes to assigning guilt for the discrimination in the deep south. No shag, they went hand in hand. Scared white people, business and local governments created the problems in the deep south, none of those groups were innocent shag. However, if one of those groups had taken a stand against discrimination the institution of discrimination would have crumbled. It needed all three. If business or individuals had strongly come out against it, backed candidates that promised to remove Jim Crow laws, it would have fallen apart. Business could have also gone to the federal level. They didn't. The only ones who did were the transportation industry, because it caused them to lose money. If it had caused other large businesses to lose money, such as theater chains, they would have also brought suits, they didn't. Their silence, along with the white majority's silence speaks very loudly.

5. However in this case - where men like Stossel and Shag and Cal and Paul believe that the justice of exclusion is more 'just' than the justice of inclusion, is an extreme all on its own. What ends are they trying to justify?

Shags answer...

Here foxy is doing precisely that with the idea of "justice" by creating a false dichotomy of a "justice of exclusion" and a "justice of inclusion". Justice has nothing to do with inclusion or exclusion. There is the more traditional view of justice as a process and a more modern, egalitarian view of justice as being results or outcome oriented.

So, you don’t think there is a ‘justice of exclusion’ shag? What do you think ‘separate but equal’ was? How about a justice of inclusion? What do you think the 19th Amendment is all about. Shag? Justice is not just a process, but also the results of that process. It is also the end result, “justice is served”. The process is just a part of the whole.

6. Hayek knows that you can't 'guarantee' the markets outcome either.

Shags answer...

Hayek's view was that one can look to history, analyze the facts and data and draw reasonably inferences (which can be tested against historical data or new data) to empirically confirm or deny those inferences; a positive approach (attempting to understand how things are, as opposed to how they should be). That basic view is what any and every economist holds. In ignoring that fact and claiming that economics is to vague to understand, foxy is, by inference, rejecting the entire science of economics. <snip>

No I am not shag – but, what you are forgetting that if you test this against historical data you have a problem. You might be able to say 'empirically' (derived by experiment or experience) but it isn't 'verifiable'. There is no way to experiment with the market - as Hayek would have pointed out, the variables are too vast, and there would be an ethics issue. But if you go with the experience part of the definition of 'empirical', historical data, from here and around the world, indicates that discrimination can take foothold in the market, and then oppress a group. It is largely a societal issue, and then the markets reflect the society around it. If the local society is prone to bigotry, then a business model that supports that will succeed. If a society is hooked on youth – that the market will also reflect that. How do you think Apple was able to wrest the market away from Microsoft?

7. Well, this is certainly a new one.. some of the most original grasping at straws I have ever seen.

Shags answer...

Once again, here is how the Delphi technique can be used to manipulate and deceive:
<snip>
Weather she is consciously using this technique or simply stumbled upon it, a lot of the means of manipulation which are employed in the Alinsky Method/Delphi Technique are being employing by her on this forum.

Once again, shag needs to incorporate creating an ‘evil’ to help his argument. Odd that I don’t. Shag isn’t an ‘evil,’ however, in this instance he seems to think that this technique will help him with this discussion. Actually he uses it in almost all his discussions. Create ‘good’ (him) and ‘evil’ (anyone who disagrees with him). It happens with such regularity that I would imagine that he sees it as succeeding.

Not this time shag.

Discrimination in the private sector is wrong, the market has shown that it will support discrimination in the past, and there is good evidence that it would support it in some fashion in the future. If a group of businesses in a contained area are allowed to discriminate, it could infringe on the rights of those discriminated against. Because there is no way to predict how much or how often this might happen (as I stated before shag, there is no way you can guarantee the market would prevent this), you have to take the stand of ‘never again will we allow discrimination to be a part of the American fabric.’

All you have to do is read mmtphoto's comments on the other thread if you don't think that this is still an active problem in America today.

 

[shagdrum]

And as predicted, the thread turns to a war of attrition. Foxy is simply repeating her narrative (and the deceptions to support it) from her previous posts while either ignoring the challenges raised against it, misrepresenting them or simply making excuses to dismiss them; postmodernist posturing.

Specifically, she uses postmodernist rhetoric to delegitmize the fact that the free market creates an incentive structure that belies the exploitation narrative she is drawing. Here are a few examples:

• She dismisses the historical examples given (concerning transportation) and claims that more examples are needed even though her only justification for the need for more examples is rooted in mere supposition on her part that ignores economic reality; she also demands a "guarantee" that the markets won't behave in the way she speculates (moving the goalposts)
• She is perpetuating her lies of Hayek and his ideas by assuming them as supporting her narrative when they have been shown in this thread to not do that, yet she can't confront the facts given about Hayek and his ideas that belie her claims about him
• Through implication she is setting up a straw man by continuing to demands a reason be shown why, "why discrimination in private business has been proven to be, and most likely will be a bad idea in the future" when no one is arguing that discrimination is a "good idea" in private business. This serves, not only to set up a straw man, but to refocus the debate toward whether or not discrimination is a "good idea"; thus excluding from debate the fact that a free market would create an incentive structure that would weed out discrimination.
• She further misrepresents by claiming that I favor "repeal[ing] the entirety of the CRA" (despite my claims to the contrary) in order to marginlize my point about her attempting to deceptively inject the premise that that the CRA, and only the CRA ended discrimination in the areas of focus in this debate without that premise being consciously accepted (thus dodging the point that she is deceptively injecting false premises into the debate and not discussing things in good faith).

There are many more examples, but I think the point has been made; she is attempting to manipulate and deceive in order to delegitimize and distablize any opposing view, there by marginalizing those views . Her claims of being an "art tart" are simply an example of the innocent, "aw shucks" sensibility she presents to hide her two-faced, manipulative nature.

The thread has become nothing more then a war of attrition where she simply ignore or dismisses any challenge to the points raised against her narrative to keep repeating the same challenges and points she makes to turn the thread into a heads-I-win,tails-you-lose situation.

I have long since tired of going 'round and 'round with her in these type of threads and when I won't continue to engage her as if she were interested in an honest discussion, she simply distorts that and leverages it to her advantage; more postmodernist posturing.

 

[foxpaws]

She dismisses the historical examples given (concerning transportation) and claims that more examples are needed even though her only justification for the need for more examples is rooted in mere supposition on her part that ignores economic reality; she also demands a "guarantee" that the markets won't behave in the way she speculates (moving the goalposts)

So, don't have anything beyond transportation, got it. You base this whole idea that business was against the Jim Crow laws by stating that one industry stood up against discrimination? I haven't dismissed your historical example (not examples as you state shag). I gave the reason why, because it was a bad economic model, and rationally asked for others. There are a few more than just one industry in the south shag - 1 vs 100 or 1,000 - however many industries didn't speak out - addresses my idea that the businesses were, mostly, for discrimination. Sorry, you have to do better than that. One industry does not make for a trend... not even close shag.

As far as a guarantee - I think that this is a valid point. If you were on the other side shag you would want some sort of statement that said discrimination isn't going to happen - in public or private business. Not some fuzzy 'well, the market should play out this way - however, there isn't any real certainty to the market and it may take some time, but we think eventually it should go away' statement.

She is perpetuating her lies of Hayek and his ideas by assuming them as supporting her narrative when they have been shown in this thread to not do that, yet she can't confront the facts given about Hayek and his ideas that belie her claims about him.

Don't have to - you quoted Hayek, and you can't state that there is anything behind your idea that there is some sort of empirical experimental evidence. You can't experiment with the actual market - models are at best 'speculative.' And empirical historical evidence is in my favor.

Through implication she is setting up a straw man by continuing to demands a reason be shown why, "why discrimination in private business has been proven to be, and most likely will be a bad idea in the future" when no one is arguing that discrimination is a "good idea" in private business. This serves, not only to set up a straw man, but to refocus the debate toward whether or not discrimination is a "good idea"; thus excluding from debate the fact that a free market would create an incentive structure that would weed out discrimination.

Shag there is no 'fact' that the free market will create an incentive structure that would weed out discrimination - otherwise, you could give me a guarantee, which you can't, or at least show me the facts... not studies, not speculation, not models, not some sort of prediction, those aren't facts... Show me studies with real case scenarios, real life fact, how long does it take, where can I expect discrimination to stop first, where will discrimination linger... those sort of facts shag. I can give you facts - lots of them. In fact, you can check on line and see how many studies show that the market does reinforce discrimination, both in business and in labor, there is a whole lot of 'real' evidence that supports that shag.

She further misrepresents by claiming that I favor "repeal[ing] the entirety of the CRA" (despite my claims to the contrary) in order to marginlize my point about her attempting to deceptively inject the premise that that the CRA, and only the CRA ended discrimination in the areas of focus in this debate without that premise being consciously accepted (thus dodging the point that she is deceptively injecting false premises into the debate and not discussing things in good faith).

Nope shag - you injected the 'entirety' thing - I was the one that questioned if you wanted to go that way-giving you an 'out'. The CRA ended discrimination, period. The question on whether or not discrimination would have ended on its own is moot. It could have taken 100 years, which would have meant it didn't end, at least in our lifetime, which is all that matters shag. This isn't some intellectual debate - this is about real people, their lives and their liberties. 100 years, heck 10 months of continuing discrimination, allowing the KKK to kill blacks and get away with it, was wrong. We needed the CRA to guarantee those atrocities would no longer happen, immediately, because one more white man let free after killing a black man, one more instance of a black woman having to use the back door of a hotel, one more instance of a black child not being allowed to use a drinking fountain, would be one too many.

I have long since tired of going 'round and 'round with her in these type of threads and when I won't continue to engage her as if she were interested in an honest discussion, she simply distorts that and leverages it to her advantage; more postmodernist posturing.

Let's look at what has been going on at the old Souter thread...

You stated...

The Plessy ruling went decidedly against the Originalist approach. While the case is often used in this manner against originalism, those using it almost always conveniently forget about John Marshall Harlan dissent in the case.

In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. "Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds​

Harlan's dissent shows how Plessy was not at all consistent with the Constitution and belies the narrative Souter is drawing (and foxy is simply echoing).

So, according to you the constitution should be 'interpreted' as saying that:

The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution.​

Why are you so against the constitution shag? And remember - the 'public highway' that Harlan is talking about is a private railroad - 'public in access' - not 'public as in government held or controlled'.

So, what is it shag - either discrimination in the private sector creates 'servitude' and is against the constitution, as you stated when you backed Harlan as being correct in his dissent - or as you have stated throughout this thread that the rights of private property should include discrimination and segregation, which in turn, somehow, magically, doesn't lead to servitude.

You can't have it both ways. Harlan knew that private discrimination lead to servitude, you seem to agree with him. So, therefore, Title II is good law, and should stand, correct? There shouldn't be any question of reverting back to before 1964 and allowing private business to discriminate or segregate, that would be unconstitutional.