BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

i really don't see any sense in that.

i also highly doubt that the state seriously cares what your fucking family tree's genetics look like.

i'm also not sure what relevance it has to the topic of 'abolishing' ethnicity in democracies altogether. it seems highly idiosyncratic.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You absolutely don't have to do that. Jay just did it because he wanted to

When I did it online it wouldn't let me submit it without listing out everything. I tried just putting white or caucasian and it wouldn't let me submit

uziq wrote:

Larssen wrote:

It seems very difficult for you to grasp that data and terminology of ethnic or racial nature will be used for racialised thinking. Do you really believe that you'll get to a point where a multicultural society is perceived as the norm if you ignore this, or will in the far future 10th generation descendants from immigrants of different racial/ethnic groups still be primarily identified by those designations? & what about mixed people?

You tell me which is more likely. The way I see it societies that are most adamant to categorise their citizens in those ways are coincidentally the ones with the most active, worst and inflammatory divisions between racial/ethnic groups.

i think multiculturalism is possible within plurality and tolerance, not abolishing very fucking obvious traits.

you can't wish away the fact that someone has their own ethnicity and their own culture.

i'm sure french people don't recognise someone's algerian or arab or african status whatsoever. nope. those banlieus are perfect representations of le corbusier's unité d'habitation!

But that is not what I'm arguing for - it's not about outright denying people their specific ethnic/racial identities or individual idiosyncracies. I'm not peering over my office window's ledge shouting down that race and ethnicity are imaginary and that people should stop pretending their turkishness, russianness or what have you matters. It's about treating these aspects of individuals as politically relevant facts.

Now I know that you'll say 'it has no political relevance if it's collected only for medical use' but it isn't that simple and that would also be a little shortsighted. To, as a government, officially recognise a value in racial/ethnic census data and related correlations you do start a process whereby racial or ethnic categorisation is accepted and practiced, which will flow from its limited and otherwise dubious scientific statistical use into other government or private sector functions and ultimately into cultural attitudes. People will read either inherent or correlated qualities in ethnic identities and communities which are sure to entrench themselves by way of continued statistical relevance.

Larssen wrote:

uziq wrote:

Larssen wrote:

It seems very difficult for you to grasp that data and terminology of ethnic or racial nature will be used for racialised thinking. Do you really believe that you'll get to a point where a multicultural society is perceived as the norm if you ignore this, or will in the far future 10th generation descendants from immigrants of different racial/ethnic groups still be primarily identified by those designations? & what about mixed people?

You tell me which is more likely. The way I see it societies that are most adamant to categorise their citizens in those ways are coincidentally the ones with the most active, worst and inflammatory divisions between racial/ethnic groups.

i think multiculturalism is possible within plurality and tolerance, not abolishing very fucking obvious traits.

you can't wish away the fact that someone has their own ethnicity and their own culture.

i'm sure french people don't recognise someone's algerian or arab or african status whatsoever. nope. those banlieus are perfect representations of le corbusier's unité d'habitation!

But that is not what I'm arguing for - it's not about outright denying people their specific ethnic/racial identities or individual idiosyncracies. I'm not peering over my office window's ledge shouting down that race and ethnicity are imaginary and that people should stop pretending their turkishness, russianness or what have you matters. It's about treating these aspects of individuals as politically relevant facts.

Now I know that you'll say 'it has no political relevance if it's collected only for medical use' but it isn't that simple and that would also be a little shortsighted. To, as a government, officially recognise a value in racial/ethnic census data and related correlations you do start a process whereby racial or ethnic categorisation is accepted and practiced, which will flow from its limited and otherwise dubious scientific statistical use into other government or private sector functions and ultimately into cultural attitudes. People will read either inherent or correlated qualities in ethnic identities and communities which are sure to entrench themselves by way of continued statistical relevance.

i find it really strange that someone as 'materialist' as you, who is fine with explaining away various cultural and historical phenomena with socioeconomic bases, then worries that 'people will adduce trends based on ethnic data'. that's really putting rather a lot on that hypothetical 'people', there. i don't think it has to be that way at all. someone can see that a given ethnic community are in a lower socioeconomic order and conclude very well that it's due to x, y, z material factors and is nothing intrinsic to 'ethnicity'.

to deny that different ethnic groups and races have different lots in society and experience different conditions/treatment really is a sort of liberal make-believe.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-18 12:49:18)

The conclusion is that I'm not solely materialist. I recognise that socioeconomic circumstance is an important facet to the creation of the identitarian lines along which society organises itself and along which it fights among itself, but it does not provide you with a de facto causal explanation for these divides. Social dynamics and processes take over which lead to this reality - these are often related, but not even necessarily so, and different. It lies in the language and framing we use about eachother and about the issues we see within society. It is in how people see themselves and form their political identities.

Which is a process that is inherently and historically flexible and fluid, at least that's what it's "supposed to be". Entrenching these temporal and uncertain identities in official government communication and data processing will be a very significant step towards a culture that is (permanently)  organised along racial/ethnic lines. It also amplifies our natural tendency to look for (non)existant patterns, to develop bias. Here I have to say that on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly where obvious physical characteristics are concerned such as skin colour and significant facial/bodily structure variations, people do of course obviously perceive those differences and consciously or unconciously ascribe qualities to the appearance. Statistical data amplifies that process.

What I'm saying is government, with its legal and social authority/legitimacy yada yada, can have a unique profound effect on identity development in society, something I'd rather not stimulate.

Larssen wrote:

The conclusion is that I'm not solely materialist. I recognise that socioeconomic circumstance is an important facet to the creation of the identitarian lines along which society organises itself and along which it fights among itself, but it does not provide you with a de facto causal explanation for these divides. Social dynamics and processes take over which lead to this reality - these are often related, but not even necessarily so, and different. It lies in the language and framing we use about eachother and about the issues we see within society. It is in how people see themselves and form their political identities.

Which is a process that is inherently and historically flexible and fluid, at least that's what it's "supposed to be". Entrenching these temporal and uncertain identities in official government communication and data processing will be a very significant step towards a culture that is (permanently)  organised along racial/ethnic lines. It also amplifies our natural tendency to look for (non)existant patterns, to develop bias. Here I have to say that on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly where obvious physical characteristics are concerned such as skin colour and significant facial/bodily structure variations, people do of course obviously perceive those differences and consciously or unconciously ascribe qualities to the appearance. Statistical data amplifies that process.

What I'm saying is government, with its legal and social authority/legitimacy yada yada, can have a unique profound effect on identity development in society, something I'd rather not stimulate.

ok then. continue leaving 'turk' off your census data and we'll see perfect integration and harmony in 2 more generations. maybe.

maybe it'll require some data and actual targeted policy to effect full integration. too bad that you're afraid to face an issue head-on.

recording fucking demographic data is NOT 'discriminating'.

noting the different ethnicities of our citizens does not have DIDDLY SQUAT to do with their 'legal status as citizens'. we don't have tiers of citizenship according to whether you're a berber or an irishman. 'ah, a white briton. right this way sir, we see you've opted for the "deluxe legal rights" package ...'

how do your social welfare programs operate? your state education and healthcare? you don't track ethnic or religious data at all? how the fuck do you know how your programs are connecting with various communities? because people do live in ethnic family units and communities, you know. you might ignore it and put euro coins over your eyes and bavarian wax in your ears, but that's how they're living their lives. how can you see which groups are being left behind? which groups suffer from particular deprivations? perhaps an aspect of your standardized education system is not connecting properly with a certain sub-group or culture? perhaps the process of 'becoming a citizen' is more difficult for certain incoming immigrants than others? how are you helping them to acculturate? to acclimatize? when you don't keep ANY fucking data?

so now whose country is more complacent and doing more harm?

anyway carry on. we all know europe is a liberal utopia and there aren't any right-wing parties on the rise or populists attaining power.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-18 14:20:53)

I can't answer all those questions because I hardly have a total or even informed view on any of those things - but did I not mention that the improvement of socioeconomic circumstance should be at the heart of these measures? If there's a convergence of lower socioeconomic status and ethnic/racial identity you will automatically become involved with, target and help these communities through such programs. 

Do note that I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about already naturalised citizens or otherwise people who are born here to immigrant families. i.e. people who hold the nationality.

As for my work - yes I've worked in policy. Very different sort of policy. Also fyi germany does keep all sorts of general data on different demographics incl. ethnically defined ones.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-06-18 14:30:48)

We record data on first generation and second generation immigrants. That's it. But that's based on national identity, so data purely on race is out of the question. However, estimates/extrapolations can be made from these data points. Nonetheless I stand by the notion that collecting deep diving demographic data despite the fact that these citizens are all german is wrong

There seems to be a deluge of articles in recent years in english press about how wrong and terrible this is, both with regard to germany and france. I think the US/UK is extremely stuck on the notion that their way is the right way, while refusing to acknowledge that its widespread use of this supposedly invaluable data is a contributing factor to the identity divides in their own societies.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-06-18 14:54:49)

Well has extensive demographic data diving and government/society's focus on, dare say obsession with, racially and ethnically defined identities not contributed to those heightened tensions and eventual u-turn?

Well from across the sea, keeping england english, flag waving and anti-migrant sentiments seemed to be the most prominent reasons to decouple from the EU. Economic arguments didn't seem seriously considered at all, even if they were about migrants stealing jobs. It looked to be more about migrants being a problem for being migrants. Like the racist john cleese implied when he complained about london no longer being an english city.

trump finally got something removed from facebook.

so the official line for zuckerberg is 'using neo nazi symbols for dissidents'.