The first, the meta aspect. Every single conservative in the land can angrily denounce "activist judges" or "red tape" or, more recently, "radical DAs." But you look at them and say: well, those are generally enacted by fiat, so just get people into those positions and it's all reversible. They look at you like they have two heads. It should be obvious: Philadelphia hasn't legalized murder. San Francisco hasn't legalized drugs, nor even shoplifting. It's all bureaucracy, it's all "pen and phone", and what can be done or undone with the pen can be reversed. It's incredible how few conservatives believe this to be an option: faced with the might of the administrative state, they either lay down and die or quixotically insist on some kind of legislative victory that's neither required nor realistic.
The second, the substance of civil rights law itself. It would indeed be a huge victory - and one that I think can be achieved - if quotas via the back door were in bold capital letters made illegal. If this country wants to have racial quotas at work, the Left should be made to do the hard work of codifying it in law, which would quite possibly involve a constitutional amendment.
Restaffing bureaucracies would be really difficult for conservatives. Far fewer conservatives want to work for them. And while replacing the political appointees is easy enough, it takes a lot of time and legal challenges to gradually replace the middle and lower echelon career employees, and it all gets undone every time Democrats are back in power. Outside of a few areas like defense or border enforcement where the raison d'etre of the bureaucracy is conservative, conservatives are at a big disadvantage when it comes to finding capable people to fill positions.
This is all true, but difficult is not equal to impossible. Once upon a time it would have been really tough to get a longhaired hippie into a bureaucracy, and they'd probably not have wanted it. But they grew up, and it got easier, and in the space of fifteen years they were The Man.
Frankly I'm not sure that we on the Right have the human capital among the youth to pull it off (and, to be clear, if we do not, that's our fault and not theirs) but when push turns to shove there needs to be a set of warm, competent bodies ready to occupy the bureaucracy, and if we can't find it among the Yale Federalist Society then we're not going to find it anywhere. Such as it is, Richard is fighting the good fight in the best possible arena.
Amazing stuff, it's unreal how many conservatives don't realize it's simply illegal for Anheuser-Busch (or anyone else) to do anything they want. I don't know how we make this standard knowledge in the vast red-state blob.
What drives me nuts is this should be good news to cons, since "we have friends in high places, they just don't like being sued for millions of dollars" is more workable than "everyone in power hates us"!
The irony is that these rules are not actually meant (today) to benefit the individual employee from a disadvantaged group (as defined) but rather to help advance the interests of activist groups and help them steer the political agendas of large corporations and anyone doing business with government. It is about power rather than equal rights or even affirmative action.
Well, it also helps pay the trial bar, too, and keeps their donations coming.
I recall reading that collecting race information is forbidden in France, which seems like a superior way. They have a mixed makeup and nowhere near the race relations problems as the USA. Shame that isn’t on the table.
I agree, but my suspicion is eventually France will cave on this issue.
I think the same is true in Germany, ironically because there, irrational fears of a fourth reich rising and using the information for nefarious purposes are still stronger than irrational fears of systemic racism.
This article brings to mind a common theme on the right that is bad and I used to be a prime offender of; entirely writing off certain professions within our legal system as illegitimate and to be avoided. Unfortunately, we did that and ceded the majority of those fields to the left. Even if what vaguely comprises the right in America consists of mid to high proles (like me), we sure as shit need some heavy hitters in our legal system.
I think this is all good stuff but it sidesteps what I see as the core of the issue: as long as its remains taboo to state the real reason that objective meritocratic measures so consistently lead to disparate impact against blacks then the discrimination will remain in some form or another. The real reason of course being genetic differences in IQ. Unfortunately conservatives are currently so feckless that despite the wealth of scientific evidence for this fact, even in conservative circles speaking it aloud is relegated to online weirdos and extremists. We need conservatives to stand up and say "yes I know it's offensive to acknowledge these differences but they're real and they have real consequences and the truth is more important than not offending people." Until powerful conservatives are willing to do that they will lose this fight over and over and the woke will back them into a corner in every argument.
Good speech. I hate the disparate impact stuff. My local Mexican restaurant is mostly staffed by Central Americans. Should they be taken to court and forced to hire more white people? Absurd.
What I can't figure out is how lawyers and clerks, etc. are able to make it through the credentialing processes (undergraduate, law school, state Bar, etc) while espousing conservative views. Why doesn't the left simply lock them out of the process? Make it impossible to become a conservative lawyer? What's stopping them?
Surely it matters if something happens via hard 'nos' or by changing who you selectively encourage.
Indeed, it's presumably illegal to directly refuse to hire applicants based on race (and I don't think you are suggesting overturning this) but if you abolish this distinction how do you respect the free speech rights of the person doing the hiring to encourage some people and not choose to encourage others?
Is anyone actually discriminating against men in admissions criteria?
Women are generally just more consistent and brighter at 17.
To the extent that there is discrimination it’s in that our modern primary and secondary education systems are, in the main, very intolerant of “adolescent male” behavior. When it comes to violence that’s a reasonable restriction.
When it comes to horseplay, giving your friends shit, a bit of light hazing, more interactive learning styles, shorter attention spans… not so much.
South Africa doesn't work because of it doesn't have the demographics to have quotas *and* maintain a first world infrastructure at the same time, not because of quotas per se.
Singapore had an interesting way of dealing with the Malay question.
Quotas work great in government where nobody is expected to do any work anyway and is presumed to be a beneficiary of patronage. No shame in getting one’s fair share of the take
Really enjoyed this in two respects:
The first, the meta aspect. Every single conservative in the land can angrily denounce "activist judges" or "red tape" or, more recently, "radical DAs." But you look at them and say: well, those are generally enacted by fiat, so just get people into those positions and it's all reversible. They look at you like they have two heads. It should be obvious: Philadelphia hasn't legalized murder. San Francisco hasn't legalized drugs, nor even shoplifting. It's all bureaucracy, it's all "pen and phone", and what can be done or undone with the pen can be reversed. It's incredible how few conservatives believe this to be an option: faced with the might of the administrative state, they either lay down and die or quixotically insist on some kind of legislative victory that's neither required nor realistic.
The second, the substance of civil rights law itself. It would indeed be a huge victory - and one that I think can be achieved - if quotas via the back door were in bold capital letters made illegal. If this country wants to have racial quotas at work, the Left should be made to do the hard work of codifying it in law, which would quite possibly involve a constitutional amendment.
Restaffing bureaucracies would be really difficult for conservatives. Far fewer conservatives want to work for them. And while replacing the political appointees is easy enough, it takes a lot of time and legal challenges to gradually replace the middle and lower echelon career employees, and it all gets undone every time Democrats are back in power. Outside of a few areas like defense or border enforcement where the raison d'etre of the bureaucracy is conservative, conservatives are at a big disadvantage when it comes to finding capable people to fill positions.
This is all true, but difficult is not equal to impossible. Once upon a time it would have been really tough to get a longhaired hippie into a bureaucracy, and they'd probably not have wanted it. But they grew up, and it got easier, and in the space of fifteen years they were The Man.
Frankly I'm not sure that we on the Right have the human capital among the youth to pull it off (and, to be clear, if we do not, that's our fault and not theirs) but when push turns to shove there needs to be a set of warm, competent bodies ready to occupy the bureaucracy, and if we can't find it among the Yale Federalist Society then we're not going to find it anywhere. Such as it is, Richard is fighting the good fight in the best possible arena.
Amazing stuff, it's unreal how many conservatives don't realize it's simply illegal for Anheuser-Busch (or anyone else) to do anything they want. I don't know how we make this standard knowledge in the vast red-state blob.
What drives me nuts is this should be good news to cons, since "we have friends in high places, they just don't like being sued for millions of dollars" is more workable than "everyone in power hates us"!
The irony is that these rules are not actually meant (today) to benefit the individual employee from a disadvantaged group (as defined) but rather to help advance the interests of activist groups and help them steer the political agendas of large corporations and anyone doing business with government. It is about power rather than equal rights or even affirmative action.
Well, it also helps pay the trial bar, too, and keeps their donations coming.
I recall reading that collecting race information is forbidden in France, which seems like a superior way. They have a mixed makeup and nowhere near the race relations problems as the USA. Shame that isn’t on the table.
I agree, but my suspicion is eventually France will cave on this issue.
I think the same is true in Germany, ironically because there, irrational fears of a fourth reich rising and using the information for nefarious purposes are still stronger than irrational fears of systemic racism.
This article brings to mind a common theme on the right that is bad and I used to be a prime offender of; entirely writing off certain professions within our legal system as illegitimate and to be avoided. Unfortunately, we did that and ceded the majority of those fields to the left. Even if what vaguely comprises the right in America consists of mid to high proles (like me), we sure as shit need some heavy hitters in our legal system.
HI Richard,
I take it you read the Economist? This is just an Instagram link, but it's so u! "Business leaders fear South Africa could become a failed state".
https://www.instagram.com/p/Csl0y5DMTKy/?img_index=1
I think this is all good stuff but it sidesteps what I see as the core of the issue: as long as its remains taboo to state the real reason that objective meritocratic measures so consistently lead to disparate impact against blacks then the discrimination will remain in some form or another. The real reason of course being genetic differences in IQ. Unfortunately conservatives are currently so feckless that despite the wealth of scientific evidence for this fact, even in conservative circles speaking it aloud is relegated to online weirdos and extremists. We need conservatives to stand up and say "yes I know it's offensive to acknowledge these differences but they're real and they have real consequences and the truth is more important than not offending people." Until powerful conservatives are willing to do that they will lose this fight over and over and the woke will back them into a corner in every argument.
Is there a video?
Good speech. I hate the disparate impact stuff. My local Mexican restaurant is mostly staffed by Central Americans. Should they be taken to court and forced to hire more white people? Absurd.
What I can't figure out is how lawyers and clerks, etc. are able to make it through the credentialing processes (undergraduate, law school, state Bar, etc) while espousing conservative views. Why doesn't the left simply lock them out of the process? Make it impossible to become a conservative lawyer? What's stopping them?
Well, here is another one thread......Nobody saw this coming, you know....
https://twitter.com/monitoringbias/status/1661063260525805591
Surely it matters if something happens via hard 'nos' or by changing who you selectively encourage.
Indeed, it's presumably illegal to directly refuse to hire applicants based on race (and I don't think you are suggesting overturning this) but if you abolish this distinction how do you respect the free speech rights of the person doing the hiring to encourage some people and not choose to encourage others?
LOL man shut the fuck up you faggot.
Is anyone actually discriminating against men in admissions criteria?
Women are generally just more consistent and brighter at 17.
To the extent that there is discrimination it’s in that our modern primary and secondary education systems are, in the main, very intolerant of “adolescent male” behavior. When it comes to violence that’s a reasonable restriction.
When it comes to horseplay, giving your friends shit, a bit of light hazing, more interactive learning styles, shorter attention spans… not so much.
Boys outscore girls on standardized tests. Consistent is fair, brighter is not.
I think boys outscore girls on the math section but girls outscore boys on the verbal section
South Africa doesn't work because of it doesn't have the demographics to have quotas *and* maintain a first world infrastructure at the same time, not because of quotas per se.
Singapore had an interesting way of dealing with the Malay question.
Fair points. I guess I should say that, while South Africa's quotas have really been damaging, even without them they would be in a hellish state.
Quotas work great in government where nobody is expected to do any work anyway and is presumed to be a beneficiary of patronage. No shame in getting one’s fair share of the take