Another strategy is to try to avoid playing a game of political tug-of-war altogether. As the economist Robin Hanson puts, it: pull the rope sideways. Instead of joining a side and pulling on the rope (of the Overton window), pull it sideways in a direction no one will resist.
I believe in the method of open-mindedness to policy but overall go for which policies you personally align with.
If politicians must locate the window, think tanks and social movements must shift the Overton window to succeed in their advocacy. They must convince voters that policies outside the window should be in it.
This allows for a more diverse set of ideals that the people can vote on. The Overton window will and must shift with the passage of each generation because each generation of people will have an overall slightly different political view of the world due to external factors.
Instead, we should insist that the burden of proof is on them. It should be their job to prove racism and discrimination are not problems anymore, rather than our job to prove they are.
I agree with this idea, if they are forced to look internally at their actions to come up with arguments we can knock down there is a higher chance of change being made.
If you’re trying to control for non-racial explanations for racial disparities, you need to make sure your alternative variables are genuinely independent, Chad. That’s how social science works. It’s kinda 101.
Ad Hominem
Studies that send matched pairs of resumes to employers, which vary only in the racial identity of the applicants, and which show a consistent racial disparity in favor of whites and against Blacks? Again, those must be flawed, they insist.
This claim is unable to be backed by the author because said studies are not within the works cited or labelled. This makes me unable to check the credibility of this statement so I must take it at face value. I am not saying I support this disparity, just want statements where statistics are involved to be backed properly.