*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

It was one of many points mentioned in the supreme court document.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1262_db8e.pdf
wait... Is that a different one? North Carolina, you son of a bitch.

This is the one I was looking for:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions...d/161468.P.pdf

Huh. What was the court ruling on? Gerrymandering has approximately nothing to do with the idea that certain voting stations are being unreasonably shut down or hassled with beyond that with control groups

[oskar]

Huh. What was the court ruling on? Gerrymandering has approximately nothing to do with the idea that certain voting stations are being unreasonably shut down or hassled with beyond that with control groups

The legislators that drafted the voter ID law requested a voter breakdown by race. Based on that breakdown they sought to limit opportunity of access for black voters in at least 5 different ways. Gerrymandering limits the voting power. It does effectively the same thing as limiting opportunity of access. NC blacks are massively more likely to vote democrat. Given the number of proposed changes that overwhelmingly affect african americans, the supreme court agreed that it constituted racial discrimination. But I don't even want to go there. It could be that the intent was not racist, and just fraud. That doesn't change that the resulting changes in the proposed law were discriminatory.

The Gerrymandering thing might have been separate, but the court documents are both from 2016.

Here's a quote from the supreme court document I linked:

In response to claims that intentional racial
discrimination animated its action, the State offered only
meager justifications. Although the new provisions target
African Americans with almost surgical precision, they
constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying
them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the
State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United
Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440
(2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity
because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his
bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” I

[wufwugy]

The legislators that drafted the voter ID law requested a voter breakdown by race. Based on that breakdown they sought to limit opportunity of access for black voters in at least 5 different ways. Gerrymandering limits the voting power. It does effectively the same thing as limiting opportunity of access. NC blacks are massively more likely to vote democrat. Given the number of proposed changes that overwhelmingly affect african americans, the supreme court agreed that it constituted racial discrimination. But I don't even want to go there. It could be that the intent was not racist, and just fraud. That doesn't change that the resulting changes in the proposed law were discriminatory.

The Gerrymandering thing might have been separate, but the court documents are both from 2016.

Here's a quote from the supreme court document I linked:

And just think, without "suspect classification", we might be able to think clearly on this, that gerrymandering is wrong yet isn't about racism.

[oskar]

And just think, without "suspect classification", we might be able to think clearly on this, that gerrymandering is wrong yet isn't about racism.

Racism suggests intent. I prefer to call it discriminatory. Intent doesn't change the effect that it disadvantages black people, which it clearly does.

[wufwugy]

Racism suggests intent. I prefer to call it discriminatory. Intent doesn't change the effect that it disadvantages black people, which it clearly does.

Do you think it is a good idea to view policy through the lens of which groups get which advantages?

[BananaStand]

Do you think it is a good idea to view policy through the lens of which groups get which advantages?

I'm not sure if it actually became a policy or not, but Obama wanted to make it illegal for gov't contractors to do background checks on people being considered for employment.

The justification: There are many people who only committed minor crimes, at young ages, and present no more risk than a person with a clean criminal record. These many people are disproportionately black. Therefore checking people's backgrounds means that less black people get jobs.

Except in real life, what really happens is that hiring managers are forced to rely on group data in the absence of individual data. So you have two candidates for a job. One white, one black. Both equally qualified. But you don't want to hire a criminal, and you know the black guy is X% more likely to have a record than the white guy. In poker terms, it's most +EV to hire the white guy.

That's the fucked up irony of this 'victimized group' game. The solutions actually make the problem worse, or it creates new problems. Either for the same group, or another group. Then the game starts all over again. But this time with a few more supporters, a little more anger, a little less patience, and a little more urgency.

That's the real game...power. Literally no one with a shred of functional intelligence actually cares about achieving equality of outcome across all group identities. The people engaging in this game don't care about equity. They care about power.

[wufwugy]

That's the fucked up irony of this 'victimized group' game. The solutions actually make the problem worse, or it creates new problems. Either for the same group, or another group. Then the game starts all over again. But this time with a few more supporters, a little more anger, a little less patience, and a little more urgency.

The "solutions" make things worse because they're not solutions. The real solutions are taught by economics.

Anti-discrimination policy makes discrimination worse. Free markets dispel discrimination. It's always a joy when somebody is open to hearing why that is.