CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
20
Do it No, it’s an serious distinct
Debate Score:58
Arguments:81
Total Votes:70
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Do it (29)
 
 No, it’s an serious distinct (15)

Debate Creator

Amarel(4792) pic



Whenever you’re asked to identity your race you should check “other”

Whatever your race, just check “other”. White and black racists alike use racial stats to pit people against each other for votes and movie sales. It’s a stupid game and we should stop playing.

Do it

Side Score: 38
VS.

No, it’s an serious distinct

Side Score: 20
2 points

When I applied to work a school district that had the usual race/ethnicity boxes to check. I looked at the definitions.

The definition for African American it said "have ancestors from Africa." The human species most likely originated in Africa, so I checked that box.

The definition for Asian was "have ancestors from Asia." The Gothic and Germanic tribes that settled Europe migrated across Asia into Europe, so I checked that box, too.

The definition of White was "have ancestors from Europe". Of course, I also checked the box for White. (Interestingly Barak Obama, and the majority of American blacks would also need to check that box.)

So, according the definitions on that form, I am White, Asian, and African American. Having been born in the US, I am also a native American.

If I could play golf, I would be Tiger Woods!

I think that trumps "other".

Side: Do it
Amarel(4792) Clarified
2 points

I think that trumps "other".

Well now, I have to agree. But there is marketing to consider. If this were an idea that ever took off, it would have to appeal to the widest demographic in the simplest terms possible. There isn’t a box for “all”. But there is always a box for “other”.

“Check all” could cause confusion and may not apply to those who can’t honestly check all. But we can all honestly check “other”.

“Check Other” is simple and appealing. It disrupts the statistical institutions just as well.

Side: Do it
marcusmoon(578) Clarified
1 point

“Check Other” is simple and appealing. It disrupts the statistical institutions just as well.

It is difficult to resist any chance to disrupt the statistical analyses, particularly when they are tracking something as irrelevant as race.

The problem is also that "Other" is often assumed to be "White" because for years there was no box for "White".

I don't know why they think it is more relevant than beverage preference.

Check One:

Coffee

Tea

Milk

Water

Soda

Juice

Other

They would assume that there was a need to give hiring preferences to milk-drinkers because they are underrepresented in the workforce. Obviously the people who check "Other" would be assumed to prefer alcoholic beverages. This would totally mess with the people who prefer horchata or boba.

Side: Do it
2 points

The libs would never go for it because there is no victimhood mentality, anyone to blame, or identity politics if we all are just Americans.

Side: Do it
Amarel(4792) Disputed
2 points

80% of Americans think political correctness is a problem. But we wouldn’t even need a large percent to mess up the stats. If 10% of people checked “other” statistical data would be known to be very inaccurate.

Side: Do it
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

Neither would most conservatives. Identitarianism is apolitical because most people are conditioned to conflate their sense of self with social classes like race, gender, nationality, etc. which means most people have a deep stake in preserving identitarianism as a general phenomenon.

Side: No, it’s an serious distinct
Amarel(4792) Clarified
1 point

My view on the matter is less dire. Identity politics appear to be front and center in the American mind only if you’re watching TV. When you talk to people, it is one of the furthest things from their mind, other than their concern that it is foremost in someone else’s mind. Recent surveys support my optimism.

Side: Do it
2 points

Abstention would be my preference where possible, but selecting 'other' can be a good alternative. At a minimum, it's more accurate than selecting any racial class presented as an option.

However, I question how effective this would be at undermining the statistics as they're presented and consumed. The category of 'other' can be omitted or buried in reporting, and people can be led to think of the data in various ways - 'other' can be seen to increase because an increased number of people identify as 'mixed' or of another minority racial class, which can be further construed to reach any number of erroneous conclusions (e.g. interracial relationships have increased so racism is no longer a problem, X minority now has more people so representation is less of a concern and they don't require as much social support so we can defund programs now, etc.).

Moreover, without knowing for certain that the 'other' category has been skewed by people who share OPs motive we could not dismiss the 'other' category on that grounds as it may well actually represent an increase in other demographic self-reporting and ignoring that could have tangible social harms. Confusing the data may well have a trade-off since this sort of data is leveraged for social justice work, as well as against it. I'm not sure that tradeoff isn't worth it, but it bears consideration I think.

As it stands, the data is generally already unreliable either by methodology (e.g. inadequate sample size) or misrepresentation (e.g. skewed representation, omission, exaggeration, etc.)... not to mention the unsoundness of racial classes at large. But people already treat such data as reliable, so I'm not convinced this again that this would substantially undermine things.

Side: Do it
Amarel(4792) Clarified
2 points

If this were ever to work, it would follow a well funded (or viral) campaign so that there isn’t much question that the increase in “other” demographics is resulting from a kind of civil disobedience.

As for trade-offs, I consider race based social justice work on any scale larger than local to be detrimental insofar as it perpetuates commonly accepted racism, which is what this idea is meant to attack. Local efforts do not need statistical support, as the affected group is right in front of them. National efforts will proceed regardless of statistics because they are racist. Stats are a sufficient aid to them, but not necessary.

Side: Do it
Jace(4706) Clarified
1 point

That would only establish correlation which is insufficient grounds from which to invalidate the data set. Regardless, I don't think the data's reliability would factor too heavily into how it's generally received anyways. Most people aren't critical consumers - they readily dismiss reliable information and favor unreliable received truths that align with their pre-existing beliefs. There are already numerous reasons to doubt data collection like this, but people still put undue confidence in it; I don't see what difference one more reason will make.

Nevertheless, I suppose it might undermine confidence in the results for some people. But even if we suppose that's a significant number of people, I still don't see what that gets us. I don't see how this would undermine peoples' faith in social identity classes, which seems to be the objective (perhaps I'm misunderstanding that though). But it would impact federal funding, which actually does impact local activities which receive federal funding based on demographic reporting (not to mention broader programming and organizations). That seems like a cost to me with no tangible gain.

I do generally agree with you, though. I'm just dubious about how effective a campaign like this would be. People have conflated themselves and their self value with the social class identities that delimit them and their behaviors, so they have a stake in preserving the social infrastructure around identity. I'm generally too jaded to believe that enough people want to or can get out from behind that to make any substantive difference. So I don't mark 'other' out of a broader sense of justice or resistance; it's just more accurate and self-respecting on my view.

Side: Do it
outlaw60(14189) Disputed Banned
1 point

LMMFAO the Idiot Jace does not know what race it is ! Did Mommy and Daddy confuse you about your race there Jace ? ROTFFLMMFAO !

Side: No, it’s an serious distinct
marcusmoon(578) Clarified
1 point

Jace,

As it stands, the data is generally already unreliable either by methodology (e.g. inadequate sample size) or misrepresentation (e.g. skewed representation, omission, exaggeration, etc.)... not to mention the unsoundness of racial classes at large.

This is all true, but the real root of the "unreliability" in use for achieving various societal goals is that race is completely irrelevant.

Even when defined minutely, race is near-useless in a culturally mixed society as a predictor of any individual's choices, behaviors, voting record, employment history, product preferences or income. (Please note the distinction between culture and race.)

I know this statement flies in the face of the standard silliness that has been spewed for 50 years, but the truth of what I am saying becomes obvious when you use a behavior or a trait to try to guess race.

He ate tacos-what is his race?

He listens to Rap-what is his race?

He is unemployed-what is his race?

He is a bad dancer-what is his race?

He is a lawyer-what is his race?

He is a Democrat-what is his race?

He drinks coffee-what is his race?

He is a racist-what is his race?

Side: Do it
FactEnforcer(34) Clarified
1 point

@Marcusmoon

All of those things apply to me except being a lawyer, a democrat and a racist. I am white as fuck.

Side: Do it
Jace(4706) Clarified
1 point

I agree that when one takes a generalized concept - like race (or culture) - and attempts to predict individual action that this is fundamentally in error. However, race is clearly relevant insofar as it's adherents act differently than they otherwise would if they did not believe in race.

Side: Do it
1 point

But what about census forms every question possible regarding racial and ethnic data is asked on them and one is legally required to fill one certainly where I live , is this the case also in the U S is it a legal requirement to fill one?

Side: Do it
Amarel(4792) Clarified
1 point

We are legally required to respond but answers to questions of race are based on self-identification, so they can’t exactly call it false.

Side: Do it
Dermot(5461) Clarified
1 point

Interesting, government officials may see it differently one runs the risk over here of a hefty fine of €44;000 euro for not filling out the form correctly as in the way it’s worded

Side: Do it
Jace(4706) Clarified
1 point

Civil disobedience is often illegal.

Side: Do it
1 point

That’s true , there’s certain countries where such disobedience could lead to dire consequences, it can be a very effective weapon for change

Side: Do it
1 point

Hey that's actually a good idea. Identity politics wants to stop racism, but is racist itself. I should not have to choose a political party based on something I can't decide on. Identity politics is cancer, both on the right and the left.

Side: Do it
1 point

Do not be afraid to answer the question just because of worries it may not be 100curate.

100curacy is unattainable for a being enslaved to its subjectivity in the first place and since the questionnaire you are answering is made by a social construct formed by such beings, you can't avoid flaws in it, you need to forgive them and work with the system anyway.

Side: No, it’s an serious distinct
Amarel(4792) Disputed
1 point

The refusal to answer the question isn’t out of fear for providing less than accurate information. It is with the intent to provide less than accurate information.

Side: Do it
Mingiwuwu(1736) Disputed
1 point

In that case, it's definitely the wrong thing to do.

Side: No, it’s an serious distinct
Mingiwuwu(1736) Clarified
1 point

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

You can't put % with ac following.

Side: Do it