271
Trump’s Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term
(nymag.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
271 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3325 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I've ever received.
Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment. The reason being that most people realize and accept that age affects abilities. So taking into account the age of a candidate wouldn't be age discrimination in the typical sense.
And he's going to take a cognitive test at my request and share the results? And those results will guarantee that he won't develop dementia for the next five years? If the answer to either is no, then I need to make a decision based on probability. He's far more likely to develop dementia than someone in their 70s, and I would guess hundreds to thousands of times more likely than someone in their 40s.
Not to mention that life expectancy would hold that he'd be dead by now. He's fairly likely to die in office, especially when considering the stress of the job.
Why, thank you, but be aware that flattery will get you nowhere.
Alrighty, then let's look at your comment from the perspective of legality. Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. That's the definition. Now if we were to continue here and expand our scope, we could state that this is illegal in working environments because - short version - there are laws making it so in the workplace, but that does not touch what is or isn't age discrimination. Since there are no laws declaring it illegal in an electoral context, age discrimination happening while voting is not illegal there, but it still very much is age discrimination. Just like in our previous example, not voting for a candidate because one doesn't like their race is still racism, but like above, it is not illegal because no law says it is.
True enough, not much difference in your conclusion because it is not a case of illegal age discrimination, but
it literally is.
By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.
You keep pivoting to race as your analogy, but it doesn't fit. Look at the scrutiny courts give to race versus sex or age. Laws based on race receive strict scrutiny, gender gets intermediate scrutiny, and age is judged with a rational basis scrutiny.
So, yes, while discrimination can mean that, it certainly has a connotation that makes it a poor word choice. It is misleading as to what's happening. Using age as a selection criteria is based on rational facts, selection based on race is based on hate. Poor analogy.
Not quite. We got two factors here, one, the different treatment from other groups, yes. but the second factor - different treatment because of someone's age - limits it to cases of different treatment due to age. It's not age discrimination because someone else gets different treatment, it is age discrimination because age is the reason for that.
And that's why racism is an apt analogy, because that is one possible motivation for different treatment in someone's mind, just like age can be another reason. The different levels of scrutiny do not touch that. These come into play because proving such motivations in court is difficult and needs quasi-tangible standards, but what's being proved is that a factor (such as age, race, gender, etc) IS the main motivation in a case.
There are two definitions for discriminate:
Either considering Biden's age isn't discrimination because it isn't unjust, because those factors are an important consideration; or every choice is discrimination because we're using the differentiate definition. Personally, I believe the second definition is useless and doesn't convey the obvious connotation of discriminate.
Race is a terrible analogy for the same reason it receives strict scrutiny, there are no readily apparent reasons to use race as a determining factor. Age is not remotely in the same ball park, because there are numerous reasons to consider age. The piece you're missing is that age can be used as the reason for disparate treatment and be within the bounds of the law. Race can...almost...never be. (Can't think of anything, or any case law that upheld a race criterion, but maybe it's possible).
We were in the legal definition of the term age discrimination, and what i said above is what's relevant there.
But both can be reasons for different treatment and in that one particular feature, they are the same, thus the sound analogy.
Age discrimination (in a legal sense) is different treatment because one particular feature (age); racist discrimination is a different treatment because of a particular feature (race) as well.
In that they are the same, the different degrees of legality of both were not in question here.
No, sorry, it remains terrible. In the same way stealing a candy bar and murder aren't analogous simply because they're both illegal. Although, at least in that analogy both would always be illegal. In your analogy, disparate treatment based on age can often be valid and permissible, well disparate treatment on race can never be.
Age: can be a reason? Yes. Race: can be a reason? Yes.
In their can-it-be-a-reason property, they are identical - both can be reasons.
I honestly don't care whether they are good reasons or bad reasons each, you're mostly right in that discussion, but that is not part of this discussion.
Smell: yes. Height: yes. Hair style: yes. Food choice: yes. Suit color: yes. Religion: yes. Party: yes. Education: yes. Speaking style: yes. Gender: yes. Handedness: yes. Weight: yes. Place of birth: yes. Sports team affiliation: yes. Personality: yes. Previous employment: yes. Name: yes. Ethnicity: yes.
^^^ They all fit as well as yours, since they can-be-a-resson. TERRIBLE ANALOGY! The only connection is so broad that a thousand other things can apply in the same way.
Okay, let's go through the checklist:
Is age a possible criterion one can base the decision to treat someone differently on? Yes. Is this true for race? Also true. One can conceivably treat others differently due to their race.
Do such different treatments have specific names? Yes, age discrimination in one case, racism in the other.
Are there laws in place that forbid treating others differently due to their age in certain contexts? Yes, in the workplace for example, that is illegal. Are there laws in place that make treating others differently due to their race illegal? Yes, there are multiple contexts, where that is illegal.
Are there contexts where one can definitely make decisions based on race? Yes, absolutely - for example one can choose to not vote for a candidate due to their race (it's an absolutely irrational dick move, but no authority will sanction that decision). Can one consider age a disqualifying factor in certain decisions like for example voting, dating, etc too? Yes absolutely.
I don't see how that analogy is lacking in any way, except that the range of laws declaring each illegal differs, but you may not find another factor that has the exact same range of situations covered. What would you consider a better analogy that ticks all these boxes?
That's your problem. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. The closer the analogy tracks to the original statement the better the analogy. The fact that race and age are two criterion that a decision can be based is extremely weak. To point this out I named a dozen or more things that you could base a decision on.
I've never stated that those aren't two things you can base a decision on, but you continue to explain that point over and over again anyway. Race doesn't track closely enough to age, an example of that is that age can often be a permissible reason to differentiate, but race never is. Ergo, bad analogy.
Well, then how about you read the other points that supplement that one factor sufficiently and explain that
you are wrong in this regard.
You've made no other points.
In courts age related restrictions are reviewed using a reasonable basis standard, whereas race related restrictions are reviewed using a strict scrutiny standard for that exact reason.
Okay, once again, to facilitate reading comprehension: I did not say that age discrimination and racial discrimination are exactly the same in all their aspects. Instead, I cited both as examples for
different treatment
based on personal attributes
In these categories, they are exactly alike. IN. THESE. CATEGORIES. they are the same (again: not in all other features).
I do recognise that there are also differences but IN TERMS OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED CRITERIA,
they
are
exactly
alike.
Yes, one is legal in a wider range of situations than the other. Also one starts with the letter R and the other starts with the letter A, so they are not exactly alike in that regard either, but they ARE both very much both a type of different treatment based on personal features that is rendered illegal by a number of laws (which is the context i used the comparison in up there). THAT group, they absolutely share.
Your objections amount to
Yes, they are indeed different, but the difference you insist on does not matter in how they are both examples of the group I mentioned; they both fall squarely into the category for which I cited them as examples. Just like in your example above
I am decidedly NOT saying that they are EXACTLY THE SAME, but if I were to enumerate examples of behaviors that are illegal in most cases, then yes, they would actually both fall into that category, despite having differences outside of that.
In conclusion: both examples of different treatment due to specific properties of people? Yes. Exactly the same? No and nobody claimed they were.
In other words, in the ways they are alike, they are alike. Congratulations, you've created a tautology.
No. I'm not claiming they're not fruits, I'm rejecting the claim that because they are both fruits their other qualities and attributes are transitive.
Your argument basically boils down to they are both fruits, therefore apples also have a lot of vitamin C.
I agree that age and race are reasons that someone could treat another person disparately but the similarities end there, which makes race a bad analogy.
Great, we agree that they share a single common factor, but that alone does not make race analogous to age. The many reasons why they're different, is why it's a bad analogy, it is why they're not analogous.
This is where you are wrong. My argument is and has always been "fruit a belongs in the category fruits, just like fruit b".
"Age discrimination consists of the following factors: [different treatment], [based on personal properties] - just like racism, which also consists of the following factors [different treatment], [based on personal properties]". Go look it up up there.
I don't know where you're pulling the assumption that I was ever saying anything different from, but that's all happening on your end.
I agree race and age are two bases for different treatment. If you have no point beyond that, then fair enough, your analogy is useless.
Not quite, it did serve as another example of different treatment that is based on personal features. Mission 100% absolutely successful.
OK, I agree, but how did that elucidate my understanding of the use of age as a factor in disparate treatment? Because, again, the myriad of differences between the two make the comparison inapplicable, IMO.
It was meant to serve as an example for different treatment based on personal properties:
Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm sorry, it didn't satisfy whatever additional objectives you're picking now, but then again it was never supposed to (and even if it did satisfy them, you'd just move that goalpost farther anyway).