Bear in mind the Johnson bills Hanania is criticising in the opening sentence of that article include the bills that finally allowed Black Americans to be able to vote in the US and outlawed racial discrimination. Can you really not see why a former secret white nationalist at the very least edging close to âbans on explicit discrimination against Black people and letting Black people vote causes crime and is therefore badâ might disgust a lot of people?
Bear in mind that none of this legislation was about crime. Some of it was facially race neutral anti-poverty stuff. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just outlaws explicit discrimination against people on the basis of their race or gender, and creates some bureaucracy to enforce this. (Look it up if you donât believe me.)
But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just outlaws explicit discrimination against people on the basis of their race or gender, and creates some bureaucracy to enforce this.
You might think this from reading the text, but that is not how it has been interpreted. Title VII has also been interpreted to address disparate impacts, which are not explicit discrimination. (it also outlaws discrimination on religion and national origin in most sections, and only outlaws sex discrimination in Title VII, not in any other part of the act.)
I could write a law that bans some kind of discrimination and also mandates the clubbing of baby seals.
And whenever anyone criticises the latter element, I could self-righteously proclaim, âHow can you criticise this bill, surely youâre against discrimination?â
Hanania doesnât criticise anything specific about the bills directly or offer a clear thesis for why they led to a rise in crime. Thereâs no analogy to clubbing seals here. The strong implication imo is that giving more freedom to black people itself led to bad things happening because black people (according to Hanania) have a bad culture. Which is a different and much more offensive (to many) thesis.
(I agree that this is then used as a segue to a pretty insightful and biting critique of conservatives, which is the main point of the article. And I can see the pragmatic value of his argumentative approach for reaching racist conservatives. But I donât think that does much to defend against a charge of racism here.)
I am not maintaining it is impossible for anyone to criticise any law that includes an anti-discrimination portion. If, say, Jason Brennan criticised anti-discrimination law on the grounds that it generated inefficient bureaucracy that did more harm than good, I wouldnât be offended.What I am claiming is that people are rightfully suspicious when someone with Hananiaâs overall track record makes the particular criticism of it he did.
Bear in mind the Johnson bills Hanania is criticising in the opening sentence of that article include the bills that finally allowed Black Americans to be able to vote in the US and outlawed racial discrimination. Can you really not see why a former secret white nationalist at the very least edging close to âbans on explicit discrimination against Black people and letting Black people vote causes crime and is therefore badâ might disgust a lot of people?
Bear in mind that none of this legislation was about crime. Some of it was facially race neutral anti-poverty stuff. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just outlaws explicit discrimination against people on the basis of their race or gender, and creates some bureaucracy to enforce this. (Look it up if you donât believe me.)
You might think this from reading the text, but that is not how it has been interpreted. Title VII has also been interpreted to address disparate impacts, which are not explicit discrimination. (it also outlaws discrimination on religion and national origin in most sections, and only outlaws sex discrimination in Title VII, not in any other part of the act.)
Itâs got nothing to do with crime is my main point.
Sorry, this isnât a very strong argument.
I could write a law that bans some kind of discrimination and also mandates the clubbing of baby seals.
And whenever anyone criticises the latter element, I could self-righteously proclaim, âHow can you criticise this bill, surely youâre against discrimination?â
Sorry, this isnât a very strong analogy.
Hanania doesnât criticise anything specific about the bills directly or offer a clear thesis for why they led to a rise in crime. Thereâs no analogy to clubbing seals here. The strong implication imo is that giving more freedom to black people itself led to bad things happening because black people (according to Hanania) have a bad culture. Which is a different and much more offensive (to many) thesis.
(I agree that this is then used as a segue to a pretty insightful and biting critique of conservatives, which is the main point of the article. And I can see the pragmatic value of his argumentative approach for reaching racist conservatives. But I donât think that does much to defend against a charge of racism here.)
I am not maintaining it is impossible for anyone to criticise any law that includes an anti-discrimination portion. If, say, Jason Brennan criticised anti-discrimination law on the grounds that it generated inefficient bureaucracy that did more harm than good, I wouldnât be offended.What I am claiming is that people are rightfully suspicious when someone with Hananiaâs overall track record makes the particular criticism of it he did.