Is Clarence Thomas a conservative?

First let's define conservative.  Once we have a definition, it is pretty easy to see if that definition applies to Clarence Thomas.

If we are arguing about whether or not Clarence Thomas is a conservatve, we are really arguing about the definition of conservative.  Any process that will lead to us agreeing on a definition will also settle our debate.

1. Because of spin.
2. Because of the changing use of language.

I am "trained" as an engineer. So, 1K == 1000. But, I work as a computer geek. So, 1K == 1024.

On my first job, there was some serious miscommunication of 1K == 1000 vs 1024 until I defined my background. Then it made sense to everyone else.

First let's define conservative.  Once we have a definition, it is pretty easy to see if that definition applies to Clarence Thomas.

Let's not define conservative. Let's see what people who self-identify as Conservative actually do.

Note the cap...Conservative is a proper noun as it is currently used.

1. Because of spin.
2. Because of the changing use of language.

Number 2 isn't a problem.

Number 1 is THE problem.

Let's not define conservative.

No problem.  If its not an interesting question to you, don't participate in that discussion.  It's not really an interesting question to me either.  I just brought it up as an example.

Anyway, a lot of disagreements aren't about deep concepts, just different feelings about the meaning of a word, come by through different life experiences and different histories of interactions with the term in question.

Agreeing on a definition in that case can help solve a problem.

An invitation to try to agree on a definition doesn't in itself strike me as spin.  There have been plenty of times when what I've meant when I said a word is not what the person thought I meant.

An invitation to try to agree on a definition doesn't in itself strike me as spin.  There have been plenty of times when what I've meant when I said a word is not what the person thought I meant.

Agreeing on terminology is the first step to productive conversation...I think of that as translating rather than defining.

But whenever I hear "first we have to define..." it's after the conflict of ideas has become apparent. An attempt to come up with a definition broad enough to make discussion of both positions possible usually winds up making you talk about something neither intended. The discussion becomes bullshit.

Back when folks were trying to define Black folks out of existence I had one guy say "When I say race, I mean tribe...no more, no less," and I was supposed to argue my case (about an American economic situation) in those terms. I told him when I said race I meant the first cut in the American caste system , and that now we'd each know what the other meant.

We may well have to identify what we are discussing. We rarely have to define it, and when we do we should be very careful that what we define actually exists somewhere in the real world. 

A lot of apparently conflicting statements are in conflict over the definition of some term.

Two I encountered here:

1. Affirmative Action
2. Jim Crow

The real nonsense is when a speaker knowingly uses an ideosyncratic definition, or for that matter an ambiguous definition.  When that happens, if we're to engage that speaker at all we must define the terms.

AA: to most people is racial preference in hiring or contract management. To some, it includes outreach or even formal expressions of friendliness to black people.

Jim Crow: as I (and a lot of people) understood the term, it referred to legal enforcement of racial preference or segregation. To others, Jim Crow covers pretty much any tolerated, public expression of bigotry, particularly including private clubs.

So we come to a place where "I oppose AA" can almost be shown by the broad definition to say "I don't like black people". Once in that zone, all contentious discussions about AA have to start with a discussion about the definition of AA.  The alternative is worse.

The real nonsense is when a speaker knowingly uses an ideosyncratic definition, or for that matter an ambiguous definition.  When that happens, if we're to engage that speaker at all we must define the terms.

When that happens, we don't engage the speaker...we engage his behavior. 

 AA: to most people is racial preference in hiring or contract management.

Define "people." 

When that happens, we don't engage the speaker...we engage his behavior.

It's seldom that easy however.  Usually these speakers have come to believe that their style of argument is valid. In their understanding, a "seizing the language" technique is just one of many rhetorical styles. It's not that they're engaging in offensive behavior, it's that they're presenting a bad argument. Politicans do it all the time.

One hopes that decomposing the argument presents them with an analysis which they will account for in the future.  The difference between speaking as a politician and speaking on a forum like p6 is that those who disagree are allowed to present their case, and the audience is granted the ability to pass judgement.

Define "people."

The population at large, as defined by regular public speakers. 

When that happens, we don't engage the speaker...we engage his behavior.

It's seldom that easy however. 

 It's ALWAYS that easy. I do it every day, right here, in public.

The population at large, as defined by regular public speakers.

I have to split that into the people affected by affirmative action programs, and those who are unaffected...and it's the unaffected ones that define affirmative action as racial preferences.

"...and it's the unaffected ones that define affirmative action as racial preferences."

Excellent point.

The only "racial preferences" that have ever mattered in this white supremacist society are those that preserve the white status quo. The fact that white folks have accomodated a few blacks and others (Clarence Thomas, for example) is not an indication of "racial preference" toward black folks. It is just a pacifier, a token effort to mitigate black rage and buy off the black middle class. Hence once Clarence Thomas got on the white supremacist court, this poster boy for affirmative action promptly set about the task of dismantling the program. We got a few black CEOs (Kenneth Chenault at American Express, et al), a Secretary of State, a US Senator, Oprah, so the kneegro quota has been filled and it's back to business as usual. The real affirmative action for black folks (racial preferences or quota) is found in the prison system. They're building jail cells right now for the next generation of black folks. Now that's affirmative action American-style.

I find this definition of "affected" to be interesting.  Not deceptive, you understand, from the context it's perfectly clear what it means, so no need to ask for a definition. It means that white males are unaffected by AA.

After being tempted to claim (with hyperbolic outrage) that all white males are affected by AA, I thought a bit about it and had to back off.  I've never personally been affected by AA.

Would we say that all black people are affected by AA?

Would we say that all white males are unaffected by AA? 

Would we say that all black people are affected by AA?

In my experience, yes. Just as we were all affected by our specific recognition in civil rights legislation. "I know my rights" had raised far more hackles than "kill whitey."

Would we say that all white males are unaffected by AA?

In my experience I have never seen a single white male actually affected by affirmative action programs beyond it being a convenient excuse...or a boost to his family's income when his wife took advantage of it.

if we understand Affirmative Action simply as programs using racial preferences to determine the allocation of resources, then we need to define 'resources'.  Resources can be anything from economic renumeration to psychological affirmation - the key is that they are something that someone wants that they don't have enough of (if at all).

therefore, the answer to your questions are as follows:

Yes, 'we' would say that.  in many cases positively, but in many more negatively. (negative  effects include internal and external social sanctions in the form of social capital).

Would we say that all white males are unaffected by AA? 

 White males are the primary recipients of the benefits of affirmative action programs.  period. even when you take into account the last 40 years, white men still benefit exponentially above and beyond the next category: white women.  pick a field or institution - including entertainment and sports - and you will find that white men are predominantly represented in nearly every category.

Yowza, CP.

So white males should be asking for more AA while blacks should all be trying to get rid of it?

How did we get way out here? 

By "defining" affirmative action as racial preferences...because we can easily indicate who got preferred because of their race.

Guess who?

Meanwhile, we lose the outreach because because people are convinced it's something it's not...convinced by people who should know better:

http://www.prometheus6.org/node/4559
http://www.discriminations.us/storage/002618.html
http://www.prometheus6.org/node/4603
http://www.prometheus6.org/node/4658
http://www.discriminations.us/storage/002639.html
http://www.prometheus6.org/node/4233

If affirmative action is by definition racial preference, then given racial preference, we conclude affirmative action?

By the definition of people who define it as such, yes. There are others who will say, given racial preferences we conclude white supremacy. 

"Would we say that all white males are unaffected by AA?"

Absolutely.

White privilege remains intact and undisturbed in every sector of American society. Why? Because there is not a single sector of the economy or society that blacks control.

AA was designed to provide access to education, jobs, etc. Most AA programs were created or adopted voluntarily by corporations and institutions. Why? The cynic in me says they were good PR and good for business. But I also believe the Nixon administration developed the idea as a way of pacificying black rage and urban unrest. Whatever the case, they certainly didn't come about because of some sudden altruistic urge on the part of white America. And they have not resulted in the diminution of white privilege or hegemony by any measure anyone would care to apply.

Notice that ConPermiso, OurHistorian and I are saying the same things in drastically different ways. ConPermiso is working in the definition AA = racial preferences, OurHistorian is working with AA = outreach, and me...I'm debunking the attachment to words rather than events.

Is the flaw in getting stuck on particular words becoming clear?

AA = pacification program like the "hearts and mind" campaign waged in Vietnam.

Give the kneegros a few scholarships and jobs and make them beholding to the status quo and they will serve as a buffer between the rabble (black masses) and the power structures of white privilege. The beneficiaries of the crumbs from massa's table, will, in gratitude, serve as gatekeepers, functionaries and overseers of the big plantation. Colin, Condi, Tomass Clarence, Underarms Williams, the list of grateful darkies defies enumeration.

Is the flaw in getting stuck on particular words becoming clear?

I suspect we've covered the territory before, and find little appeal in repeating the journey.

On its face, AA is legally and socially enforced racial preference.

White superiority certainly has been legally and socially enforced racial preference for most of American history.

There might be an interesting discussion regarding whether some forms of white preference exist today.  If I see commonality in CP, OS, and P6, it's the suggestion that such preference does exist.

Just for a starting place, the organization I know best actively solicits black job applicants. By policy, if the applicant is qualified for an open job, the chance they will be offered a job is near certainty.  White and Asian applicants find a second barrier after being found qualified: they have to compete with each other.

Indeed, "qualified" is a subjective judgement, and includes more than the expected credentials.  However, black applicants are special.  A white or Asian applicant can be rejected without anything more than "didn't communicate very well" or "didn't seem to want the job", no need to discuss qualification at all. Declining a job offer to a black candidate requires detailing why the candidate was not qualified, knowing that the results will be reviewed by the "diversity police".  Most black candidates with the appropriate credentials are offered the job.

So if there's any systematic white preference in hiring in American government or large industry, I don't see it.  Doesn't mean it's not there, but it would help that if it is there someone could provide some insight as to what to look for.

My observation also doesn't contradict P6's general assertion that such activity is done to increase profits.

I suspect we've covered the territory before, and find little appeal in repeating the journey.

Then why did you raise the topics? 

Me, I'm still addressing actions...like raising topics then saying you don't want to go into it, and repeating all the stuff that had no traction in this or any other discussion. 

"So if there's any systematic white preference in hiring in American government or large industry, I don't see it.  Doesn't mean it's not there, but it would help that if it is there someone could provide some insight as to what to look for."

What kind of Mr.Magoo glasses are you wearing? A recent Princeton University study concluded that white felons were more likely to get hired in NYC than blacks and Latinos with no criminal record. The study used data from 1500 private employers. Below is a link to an abstract of the study.

http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874

Then why did you raise the topics?

To illustrate the need for an agreed definition. 

A recent Princeton University study concluded that white felons were more likely to get hired in NYC than blacks and Latinos with no criminal record.

1. This study was of "low-wage labor markets".  Not my world, thankfully. 

2. Nowhere in the abstract did I see a summary like you claim above.  I did observe three tables, but they aren't very well explained. Table 1 seems to show a measurable racial difference in low-wage job interest. Table 3 seems clear, and shows that black applicants who confess a criminal past are more severely penalized than white applicants who confess the same criminal past.  Table 2, I couldn't rectify with respect to table 3.

In any case, let's stipulate that the study accurately shows that the low-wage job market in NYC is tougher for blacks than whites.  Is that a representative example of white racial preference in hiring in America?

And why do you continue?

Because the question of pro-white bias in hiring is a different question than AA.

The link seems broken. Could be a .. between org and /node. 

The link seems broken. Could be a .. between org and /node.

Indeed it was. Thank you. 

Because the question of pro-white bias in hiring is a different question than AA.

No, it's not. It's racial preference in hiring. That's your definition of AA, right? Or did you leave something out?

All catchers are by definition baseball players.  All pitchers are by definition baseball players. It doesn't follow that pitchers are catchers.

Now there may be an interesting discussion regarding racial bias in hiring, both pro-white and AA.  If we could show pro-white bias in the hiring of low wage previously convicted men, would that justify a pro-black bias in other contexts?

All catchers are by definition baseball players.  All pitchers are by definition baseball players. It doesn't follow that pitchers are catchers.

That is not equivalent to the case at hand. Your definition was the equivalent of defining baseball players, not catchers or pitchers. What you've said is, in effect, racial preferences for Black folk is AA, and racial preferences for white folk is something else.

The report defines the penalty for being Black. It's fairly constant across social class, economic level, job type, etc...an inclusive etc. 

It's the basic hierarchial definition.

Racial preference doesn't need a definition, but for the record, if one prefers one race over another when selecting among candidates for a job, that's racial preference in hiring. We'll leave choosing a mate or friends or even posters to one's blog out of it as not being what we're discussing.

Both pro-white preference ("something else") and pro-black preference (usually, but not always AA) are subsets of racial preference.  If someone turned me down for a job tending bar because they believed that the black clientelle preferred a black bartender, that wouldn't be AA.

Pro-white preference is illegal (as it should be), although during the Jim Crow era pro-white preference was often required by law.  Pro-black preference was required by law during the AA era.

I'm not disputing the existence of pro-white preference, at least in some contexts.  Pro-black preference also cannot be disputed, at least in some contexts. What's not at all clear is that increasing one or the other is a reasonable way for a society to achieve progress.  Now we can define "progress".

What's not at all clear is that increasing one or the other is a reasonable way for a society to achieve progress.  Now we can define "progress".

Proceed... 

I define societal progress as increasing the ratio of success. Successful people / all people. I'm more concerned with America than the world at large.

And you? 

Doesn't matter. I deal with the conditions as I find them and make the choices that leave me and mine in the best condition.

Define success.

Define success.

Among adults, those people who answer "yes" when asked if they are successful, minus those in prison, those who should be in prison because they're active crooks, and those dependent upon involuntary contributions of others for their sustanance. Plus a few who falsely disclaim success for personal reasons.

You've defined the set of successful people. You haven't defined success.

Success for an individual is joining that set.

Success for a large group can only be defined relatively, because no large group can achieve 100% success. The US is more successful than Mexico. American Mormons are more successful than American non-Mormons.  New immigrants are more successful than old blood.

Success for a small group would be getting all membes into that set.  This is rare, and nearly non-existent beyond about 25 people. Some small groups aim at success by evicting all unsuccessful members, but this tends to weaken the fabric which holds the group together. Ususally even small groups are analyzed relative to one another, and claims of perfection are greeted with skepticism.

Progress was previously defined as an increased ratio of successful people / all people, and is defined the same for any group.

Duh. Circles.

Success for an individual is joining that set.

Let's try it this way: what are the characteristics without which one cannot be classified as successful?

In case you're wondering why I'm being so insistent, I'd like to quote someone I know you trust:

The real nonsense is when a speaker knowingly uses an ideosyncratic definition, or for that matter an ambiguous definition.  When that happens, if we're to engage that speaker at all we must define the terms.

Your definition of "success" is ambiguous, and your refusal to be specific shows you know it to be so. Therefore it is, by your own criteria, "the real nonsense." 

My definition is a bit subjective, and as such lacks crispness,  but it is not ambiguous. A definition is not made ambiguous by the existence of marginal examples.  It's made ambiguous by allowing two or more different meanings, leaving open the potential that the listener hears one communication while the speaker issued a different communication.  Resulting in non-sense.

I'll be gone a few days, family things (good). 

It's made ambiguous by allowing two or more different meanings, leaving open the potential that the listener hears one communication while the speaker issued a different communication.  Resulting in non-sense.

Since I'm using your definition...if I ever find out what it is...that's not an issue. 

I'll be gone a few days, family things (good).

Have a good time. I'll remind you where we left off when you come back. 

So one might wonder why a long thread on definitions.

I originally accepted the challenge because I thought my definition of success was compatible with, albeit different from, P6's..and the secondary challenge became for P6 to actually reject my defintion with some objection. Seemed to have potential.

The potential remains unrealized. I'm not sure what did happen, but we seem to have ended up in a space which needs the addition of something akin to nudity to achieve any entertainment value (similar to "that and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee", we have "that and some female nudity will get you minimal entertainment").

I originally accepted the challenge because I thought my definition of success was compatible with, albeit different from, P6's

Might be.

the secondary challenge became for P6 to actually reject my defintion with some objection.

Two points: I reject ALL definitions. I work with indications.

we seem to have ended up in a space which needs the addition of something akin to nudity to achieve any entertainment value

Told you long ago, this isn't about entertainment. If that's your sole reason for participating, you WILL be disappointed.  

So one might wonder why a long thread on definitions.

So that people will understand what I'm doing...pointing out that which I see that is outside their definitions and hence not taken into account. So people understand why I so freely disregard their definitions when they conflict with the facts on the ground rather than trying to spin definitions into something that might be true.

So people understand why I so freely disregard their definitions when they conflict with the facts on the ground rather than trying to spin definitions into something that might be true.

Fair enough.  I do hang around here because I'm regularly presented with perspectives I've never encountered before.  Maybe others do too. 

I've been away for a few days so I missed dwshelf's following comment:

"Nowhere in the abstract did I see a summary like you claim above.  I did observe three tables, but they aren't very well explained. Table 1 seems to show a measurable racial difference in low-wage job interest. Table 3 seems clear, and shows that black applicants who confess a criminal past are more severely penalized than white applicants who confess the same criminal past.  Table 2, I couldn't rectify with respect to table 3. In any case, let's stipulate that the study accurately shows that the low-wage job market in NYC is tougher for blacks than whites.  Is that a representative example of white racial preference in hiring in America?"

Perhaps the following quote from the abstract helps make clear the findings of white racial preference in hiring:

"With a majority of our data collection complete, we are able to report some preliminaryresults for four of our six audit teams. Table 1 reports the percentage of callbacks and/or job offers received from employers following job interviews with matched white, Latino,and black applicants. These results demonstrate a clear racial hierarchy with white applicants at the top, followed by Latinos, and blacks at a distant third (the black-white difference in response rates (7.9 percentage points) is statistically significant)."

Do you really believe that white racial preference is operative only in the low-wage job market?

Do you really believe that white racial preference is operative only in the low-wage job market?

I believe it is not operative in the organization I understand best, which is a high wage context. 

I'm still gathering data on other contexts, and wondered if this story was the center of what issue exists.  If not, what kind of factors yield one result over the other.

"If not, what kind of factors yield one result over the other."

The only operative factor at work in the cause and effect feedback mechanism that produces this measurable disparity in the hiring of "non-whites" is white supremacy, whch is also benignly known as "white privilege." As to the "high wage context," since the stakes (and wages) are obviously higher the higher up the ladder you go, I don't doubt for one minute that white privilege remains a major impediment to "non-white" white-collar job seekers. I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States of America, a nation founded and grounded in apartheid, the vestiges of which continue to confound and undermine genuine efforts to achieve equality, equal opportunity, and social justice.