Slavery Reparations

calamity said:

Like I said, your obsession with collectivism is very 1950's. Try the 21st Century out for size. It's kind of cool. We have these little computers now that they call phones. Neat stuff.

Click to expand...

Although we both know TurtleDude meant to be insulting, you could be the bigger man and be more generous when reading his claim. People on the far left tend to adopt a collectivist perspective on social issues.

On college campuses, what you have is a rather strong adherence to an intersectional narrative whereby issues are analyzed at the level of groups of people. Your ethnic background, your gender, your gender identity and expression, your sexual orientation, your religious beliefs, etc. define an intersection to which you belong. The idea is that each variable provides you with a world view and interests, much as in Marx' theory whereby your productive function determined the content of your consciousness, except a broader array of variables are held to be meaningful. In this view, groups fight with groups and individuals can be seen as mere avatars of the group pinned down by the intersection to which they belong. The point is not to criticize this view, nor to claim all people on the left adhere to it. The point is that the perspective here is about collections of people as opposed to individual people. At a moral level, you can hurt groups.

Other things can be said to be collectivist on the left, though this applies to a much wider range of the political spectrum. More often than not, when someone on the left perceives a situation to be a problem, they propose a centralized program to deal with it. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the question of sexual education in public schools was highly debated in the US. Traditionally, parents decided when and how to introduce their children to discussions about sexuality. Almost everyone on the right preferred to let parents decide, an admittedly highly heterogeneous group. Almost everyone on the left preferred to let the government officials decide for all parents. That is one (old) example, but it makes something salient. When introducing policy choices, a neglected aspect of the discussion concerns who get to choose. More often than not, government programs mean one small set of people decide in lieu of everyone else. That can also be called "collectivist."

The point is that you can read TurtleDude's claims very narrowly as if it was about communist regimes, making them largely irrelevant. Or, you can think about it more broadly, in which case it might be relevant. I am not sure either of you trying to preempt discussion by calling the other foolish is going to serve anyone. There are enough people who shout "racist" to silence others or calling everything "fake news" in the US. I doubt more of that is needed.

calamity said:

Nonsense.

With numbers like those, the whine about socialism "taking over" rings hollow.

Click to expand...

To be fair, there are surveys showing the position of Republican, Independent, and Democratic elected members of Congress since the early 1990s. Both surveys use slightly different methods but come to the same conclusions. It is true that some Republicans went further at the far right tail of the distribution of opinions, however, the bulk of the mass of that distribution today is roughly where it was some 25 years ago. On the other hand, the whole distribution of Democrats has been sliding leftward. If you take the mode as a reference point for both, the leftward shift of Democrats is twice as big as the rightward shift of Republicans since the early 1990s. Moreover, Democrats added considerably more mass at the far left than Republicans did at their far right. Their distribution of positions is now nearly bi-modal, with a small hump toward the far left.

On the other hand, we do not observe political position on a constant continuum from right to left: we infer political positions on such a spectrum. It's not impossible the methods exaggerate differences one way or another, though the message is robust across two surveys. We would need to dig into the details to see if it is justified or not and I confess not to have spent the time doing it. Regardless, even if the claims I present here might be wrong to some degree, it does show they are not without substance: they at least need to be addressed carefully, at least more so than someone who just has the personal impression the party closest to his own position is conveniently not the one drifting away.

Moreover, although I do see the point you are trying to make about people on the left growing alarmed by increasing inequalities, it is slightly out of context. Since Donald Trump started his campaign, my impression is that political disputes did not center on inequalities of income or wealth. There were discussions about the Affordable Care Act, his tax cuts and the 15 dollars minimum wage idea, but a lot of the discussions focus on identity politics. Again, I might be wrong, but the story almost always seems to be about someone on the far left calling the President, Republicans or someone else a bunch of names. Even when talks turn to economic issues, someone seems compelled to talk about discrimination. My guess is that Democrats made an awful strategic bet by endorsing increasingly grave accusations made from the "woke" left, that they're doing more or less what Trump wants them to do and that it makes talking and dealing with the problem you point out in this graph extremely difficult. Democrats seem to be far too sensitive to an all too vocal minority of radicals that express themselves online or get news coverage. The most recent example of that is Trump signing a bill regarding immigration policy that got almost no coverage because the central story was how he told some Democrats to go back to their country... They can keep thinking he's stupid and inept, but he's done that kind of thing more than once. The response of radicals on the left is as predictable at the arrival of a German train on schedule, so you can play with them.

Just a datum point. In the last four pages, the word "left" has been mentioned 32 times. The word "left" has either preceded by "far", "woke", and "radical". I mention this point because this message board has the hallmarks of a great drinking game.

1 shot for "left", "leftward", "lefties"
2 shots for "far left"
3 shots for "radical left"
4 shots for "socialist left"
5 shots for "'woke' left"

I mention this because this message board is so predictable that it's laughable. Everything is Obama, Clinton, left, radical, socialist, woke, SJW, fake news, radical news, deep state, identity politics, but her emails, Q, anon, etc etc. It's the same **** over and over again. The veterans of this message board who continue to engage with these "people" deserve the Nobel Prize for Patience. I put "people" in quotation marks because these "people" are, for all intents and purposes, are robots, automatons, or NPCs. The people here, for the most part, have autism and are unable to understand empathy or compassion. It's the reason why they watch horrific videos of people getting shot or burned alive, it's the reason why a migrant family drowning on their way to America doesn't phase them, it's the reason why evidence of racism doesn't sway them, it's the reason why they pull out the sword and shield of whataboutism and deflection. For those engaging with these inbreds (and autism is linked to inbreeding, go ahead, Google it), you are wasting your time because these "people" are beyond help. In fact, these "people" aren't human beings, they are monsters and deserve to be dehumanized.

TheEconomist said:

Although we both know TurtleDude meant to be insulting, you could be the bigger man and be more generous when reading his claim. People on the far left tend to adopt a collectivist perspective on social issues.

On college campuses, what you have is a rather strong adherence to an intersectional narrative whereby issues are analyzed at the level of groups of people. Your ethnic background, your gender, your gender identity and expression, your sexual orientation, your religious beliefs, etc. define an intersection to which you belong. The idea is that each variable provides you with a world view and interests, much as in Marx' theory whereby your productive function determined the content of your consciousness, except a broader array of variables are held to be meaningful. In this view, groups fight with groups and individuals can be seen as mere avatars of the group pinned down by the intersection to which they belong. The point is not to criticize this view, nor to claim all people on the left adhere to it. The point is that the perspective here is about collections of people as opposed to individual people. At a moral level, you can hurt groups.

Other things can be said to be collectivist on the left, though this applies to a much wider range of the political spectrum. More often than not, when someone on the left perceives a situation to be a problem, they propose a centralized program to deal with it. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the question of sexual education in public schools was highly debated in the US. Traditionally, parents decided when and how to introduce their children to discussions about sexuality. Almost everyone on the right preferred to let parents decide, an admittedly highly heterogeneous group. Almost everyone on the left preferred to let the government officials decide for all parents. That is one (old) example, but it makes something salient. When introducing policy choices, a neglected aspect of the discussion concerns who get to choose. More often than not, government programs mean one small set of people decide in lieu of everyone else. That can also be called "collectivist."

The point is that you can read TurtleDude's claims very narrowly as if it was about communist regimes, making them largely irrelevant. Or, you can think about it more broadly, in which case it might be relevant. I am not sure either of you trying to preempt discussion by calling the other foolish is going to serve anyone. There are enough people who shout "racist" to silence others or calling everything "fake news" in the US. I doubt more of that is needed.

Click to expand...

you're wrong. The American left has become statist, parasitic, and reactionary. The solution to almost every problem, to them, is more government, more regulations and/or more taxes. Most of the proposed solutions don't even pretend to do something other than take from others.

Huey Freeman said:

In fact, these "people" aren't human beings, they are monsters and deserve to be dehumanized.

Click to expand...

It does not suffice that you disagree with people. It does not suffice that you insult and attack them instead of addressing the content of their thoughts. You have to demonize them. The fundamental reason they disagree with you is that they are evil. But, tell me, how on Earth can you be sure you are not grossly mistaken? You are putting words in the mouth of people. You are accusing them of horrors and making ample use of racial slurs. You are telling people to give up discussing policy issues. And you are now saying their rights and dignity as human beings should be overlooked because they disagree with you. I don't know what part of it is worse.

When you realize people can disagree about complicated issues without some of them being mischievous subhuman beings, your life will change, In the meantime, enjoy the endless frustration, disappointment, and misery that comes with the attitude that generates these kinds of comments.

Huey Freeman said:

Everything is Obama, Clinton, left, radical, socialist, woke, SJW, fake news, radical news, deep state, identity politics, but her emails, Q, anon, etc etc. It's the same **** over and over again.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have said it many times and will repeat this again: I actually liked Obama. I am always pleased to hear him talk about policy problems during interviews where he has the time to develop his ideas because he routinely points out why other equally intelligent people might disagree with him.

The reason I take the pain to write "woke left," "radical left," "identitarian left" and more of those things is because I am not accusing the entire left side of the political spectrum. I am accusing only the people who think the world is a Hobbesian field pitting groups against groups in complete disregard of individuality. The left needs a voice, but it is being increasingly co-opted by this very vocal minority of people who seem to have taken the Nietzschean dictum "there is no truth, only power" as their motto. It's the people who cheered the terrorist attack on the ICE facility, the people who join Antifa and attack civilians and policemen on the grounds of a disagreement about policy or ethics, the people who think everything goes and who have a vested interest in disrupting our way of life.

I don't hate those people because I am peculiarly conservative. I hate those people because they are turning the left into a hate-filled circus.

TurtleDude said:

you're wrong. The American left has become statist, parasitic, and reactionary. The solution to almost every problem, to them, is more government, more regulations and/or more taxes. Most of the proposed solutions don't even pretend to do something other than take from others.

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You said the word "left" once in your post. Every one have a drink.

TheEconomist said:

It does not suffice that you disagree with people. It does not suffice that you insult and attack them instead of addressing the content of their thoughts. You have to demonize them. The fundamental reason they disagree with you is that they are evil. But, tell me, how on Earth can you be sure you are not grossly mistaken? You are putting words in the mouth of people. You are accusing them of horrors and making ample use of racial slurs. You are telling people to give up discussing policy issues. And you are now saying their rights and dignity as human beings should be overlooked because they disagree with you. I don't what part of it is worse. It sounds like Nazi propaganda wrapped in a coating of false concern for the downtrodden so as to make it palatable.

When you realize people can disagree about complicated issues without some of them being mischievous subhuman beings, your life will change, In the meantime, enjoy the endless frustration, disappointment, and misery that comes with the attitude that generates these kinds of comments.



Actually, I have said it many times and will repeat this again: I actually liked Obama. I am always pleased to hear him talk about policy problems during interviews where he has the time to develop his ideas because he routinely points out why other equally intelligent people might disagree with him.

The reason I take the pain to write "woke left," "radical left," "identitarian left" and more of those things is because I am not accusing the entire left side of the political spectrum. I am accusing only the people who think the world is a Hobbesian field pitting groups against groups in complete disregard of individuality. The left needs a voice, but it is being increasingly co-opted by this very vocal minority of people who seem to have taken the Nietzschean dictum "there is no truth, only power" as their motto. It's the people who cheered the terrorist attack on the ICE facility, the people who join Antifa and attack civilians and policemen on the grounds of a disagreement about policy or ethics, the people who think everything goes and who have a vested interest in disrupting our way of life.

I don't hate those people because I am peculiarly conservative. I hate those people because they are turning the left into a hate-filled circus.

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You said the word "left" 7 times in your post. You also used "woke left" and " radical left" which are bonus words! Every one have a 13 shots. Damn, we gonna get durnk (misspelled on purpose ) tonight.

Huey Freeman said:

Congratulations! You said the word "left" 7 times in your post. You also used "woke left" and " radical left" which are bonus words! Every one have a 13 shots. Damn, we gonna get durnk (misspelled on purpose ) tonight.

Click to expand...

You're an imbecile. Period.

TheEconomist said:

It does not suffice that you disagree with people. It does not suffice that you insult and attack them instead of addressing the content of their thoughts. You have to demonize them. The fundamental reason they disagree with you is that they are evil. But, tell me, how on Earth can you be sure you are not grossly mistaken? You are putting words in the mouth of people. You are accusing them of horrors and making ample use of racial slurs. You are telling people to give up discussing policy issues. And you are now saying their rights and dignity as human beings should be overlooked because they disagree with you. I don't what part of it is worse. It sounds like Nazi propaganda wrapped in a coating of false concern for the downtrodden so as to make it palatable.

When you realize people can disagree about complicated issues without some of them being mischievous subhuman beings, your life will change, In the meantime, enjoy the endless frustration, disappointment, and misery that comes with the attitude that generates these kinds of comments.



Actually, I have said it many times and will repeat this again: I actually liked Obama. I am always pleased to hear him talk about policy problems during interviews where he has the time to develop his ideas because he routinely points out why other equally intelligent people might disagree with him.

The reason I take the pain to write "woke left," "radical left," "identitarian left" and more of those things is because I am not accusing the entire left side of the political spectrum. I am accusing only the people who think the world is a Hobbesian field pitting groups against groups in complete disregard of individuality. The left needs a voice, but it is being increasingly co-opted by this very vocal minority of people who seem to have taken the Nietzschean dictum "there is no truth, only power" as their motto. It's the people who cheered the terrorist attack on the ICE facility, the people who join Antifa and attack civilians and policemen on the grounds of a disagreement about policy or ethics, the people who think everything goes and who have a vested interest in disrupting our way of life.

I don't hate those people because I am peculiarly conservative. I hate those people because they are turning the left into a hate-filled circus.

Click to expand...

First, autism speaks. Second, what you see and what you feel is the hate that hate produced. You are dehumanized in the same manner that white people dehumanize people of color. I'm not a human? Cool. Neither are you. You see, I was one of those naive people of color who believed, right after Obama was elected, that white people had turned the page on race. I was naive as ****. Even after 2010 and the whole "we gonna make him a 1-term President", I really thought white people were not going to be hateful. But, after striking down portions of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act - cornerstone legislation - penned in the blood of slaves, lynchings, and assassinations, I still give ya'll the benefit of the doubt. Then, incredibly, over 50 million of you monsters voted for someone who affirmed his daughter as a "piece of ass", who claimed that a Hispanic judge could not fairly adjudicate his case, and roused his base to support extrajudicial imprisonment of political opponents, I could no longer turn a blind eye to whiteness. Whiteness is, as Dubois and Baldwin have pointed out, killing this country and tearing it a part at the seams. Lastly, I don't give a **** about your make-believe war with the Democrats or the radical left, or fictional left, or whatever kind of made-up-word left you're going to spit. I don't. And, for the most part, most people of color don't identify with Democrats on most issues EXCEPT strong federal civil rights protections. The fact that most blacks - over 70% of us - identify as Christian yet the Republican party cannot capture anymore than 10 - 15% of our vote, speaks to the failure of the Republican party, not the Democratic party. We know damn well the Democrats aren't gonna do **** for us. But, the difference between the Republican and the Democrat is that the Democrat has little appetite the roll back the gains of the Civil Rights Movement; on the other hand, Republicans have been destroying these hallmarks piece-by-piece since 1968.

TheEconomist said:

You're an imbecile. Period.

Click to expand...

I think TheEconomist has been hacked. This dude just wrote a post without the word "left" in it.

Huey Freeman said:

Congratulations! You said the word "left" once in your post. Every one have a drink.

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving what I already knew.

Huey Freeman said:

I'm not a human? Cool. Neither are you.

Click to expand...

I never said you were not human. That is what you said about many people.

Huey Freeman said:

You see, I was one of those naive people of color who believed, right after Obama was elected, that white people had turned the page on race.

Click to expand...

You expand pages upon pages about "white people," as if all white people are the same. On this thread and other, you are one of the few people who invoke race at every turn. I don't give a damn about the color of your skin, or that of anyone else for that matter.

Huey Freeman said:

Then, incredibly, over 50 million of you monsters voted for someone who affirmed his daughter as a "piece of ass", who claimed that a Hispanic judge could not fairly adjudicate his case, and roused his base to support extrajudicial imprisonment of political opponents, I could no longer turn a blind eye to whiteness. Whiteness is, as Dubois and Baldwin have pointed out, killing this country and tearing it apart at the seams.

Click to expand...

You seem to be unaware of an obvious fact: millions of white people did not vote for Trump and hundreds of thousands of black people did.

The only thing tearing the US apart are people who insist on seeing everything as a matter of skin color. Not all black people are the same. Not all white people are the same. Not all hispanic people are the same. Not all asian people are the same... Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "How can I make sure my race has an edge over other races?" The truth is that most people have other things on their mind. In the real world, people think about their rent, not about the skin color of the guy who flips burgers at the local McDonald's or that of their accountant for that matter.

The idea that millions of people across states, continents and time somehow align their behavior following a handful of arbitrary variables like the color of their skin or what dangles or not between their legs is ludicrous. Even if everyone was a deep racist, this narrative would run headfirst into the wall because of an obvious truism: no matter how much anyone hates you, I can guarantee you they like themselves more than they hate you. That idea comes from Thomas Sowell, a man whose beliefs stand starkly at odds with yours but ... wait for it ... he is black. He actually believes nearly every single policy you support did more to hurt black people than Jim Crow laws and perhaps even slavery -- and that actually is a paraphrase of his opinion, not mine.

TheEconomist said:

I never said you were not human. That is what you said about many people.



You expand pages upon pages about "white people," as if all white people are the same. On this thread and other, you are one of the few people who invoke race at every turn. I don't give a damn about the color of your skin, or that of anyone else for that matter.



You seem to be unaware of an obvious fact: millions of white people did not vote for Trump and hundreds of thousands of black people did.

The only thing tearing the US apart are people who insist on seeing everything as a matter of skin color. Not all black people are the same. Not all white people are the same. Not all hispanic people are the same. Not all asian people are the same... Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "How can I make sure my race has an edge over other races?" The truth is that most people have other things on their mind. In the real world, people think about their rent, not about the skin color of the guy who flips burgers at the local McDonald's or that of their accountant for that matter.

The idea that millions of people across states, continents and time somehow align their behavior following a handful of arbitrary variables like the color of their skin or what dangles or not between their legs is ludicrous. Even if everyone was a deep racist, this narrative would run headfirst into the wall because of an obvious truism: no matter how much anyone hates you, I can guarantee you they like themselves more than they hate you. That idea comes from Thomas Sowell, a man whose beliefs stand starkly at odds with yours but ... wait for it ... he is black. He actually believes nearly every single policy you support did more to hurt black people than Jim Crow laws and perhaps even slavery -- and that actually is a paraphrase of his opinion, not mine.

Click to expand...

Sowell is a RW hack. There is that.

calamity said:

Sowell is a RW hack. There is that.

Click to expand...

Edify us with your proof that Sowell is a hack. And tell us what he has said is wrong

TurtleDude said:

Edify us with your proof that Sowell is a hack. And tell us what he has said is wrong

Click to expand...

Uh, do you believe the "war on poverty" was worse for Blacks than slavery and Jim Crow?


Do tell.

calamity said:

Uh, do you believe the "war on poverty" was worse for Blacks than slavery and Jim Crow?


Do tell.

Click to expand...

Depends on how you evaluate things. I think blacks, as a whole, would be better off now if the war on poverty had been much different and if it created less dependency

calamity said:

Sowell is a RW hack. There is that.

Click to expand...

Waiting for you to back this nonsense up. Sounds like the racist view that if a Black doesn't support the political expectations of leftwing whites, he must be a "hack" or "Uncle Tom" or worse.

TurtleDude said:

Depends on how you evaluate things. I think blacks, as a whole, would be better off now if the war on poverty had been much different and if it created less dependency

Click to expand...

That's not the question. Sowell said slavery and Crow were less harmful to blacks than the WOP. That's hackish bull****.

Agreed?

TurtleDude said:

Waiting for you to back this nonsense up. Sounds like the racist view that if a Black doesn't support the political expectations of leftwing whites, he must be a "hack" or "Uncle Tom" or worse.

Click to expand...

look up

TheEconomist said:

You seem to be unaware of an obvious fact: millions of white people did not vote for Trump and hundreds of thousands of black people did.

The only thing tearing the US apart are people who insist on seeing everything as a matter of skin color. Not all black people are the same. Not all white people are the same. Not all hispanic people are the same. Not all asian people are the same... Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "How can I make sure my race has an edge over other races?" The truth is that most people have other things on their mind. In the real world, people think about their rent, not about the skin color of the guy who flips burgers at the local McDonald's or that of their accountant for that matter..

Click to expand...

(post shortened to stay within the 5000 char limit)

This is my last post on the matter because not only are we speaking different languages but we've drifted so far from the topic of reparations (the topic at hand) that this thread is lost. IMO, it should be shut down, taken off life support, put in a coffin, and buried 6 feet under. I insist on "seeing everything as a matter of skin color"? Really? This country is founded upon "a matter of skin color", waged an entire war against itself regarding "a matter of skin color", instituted separate institutions, water fountains, and facilities on "a matter of skin color"; this country lynched, redlined, gerrymandered, and assassinated its own citizens as "a matter of skin color". Now, in 2019, where you have white people shooting up black churches, killing black people in the street, gerrymandering our vote into non-existence, you have the audacity to tell me that I'm seeing everything "as a matter of skin color" and that you "don't see race"? Please. This is our reality whether you choose to validate it or not.

I don't care about your individualism or your white supremacy. The whole "I don't see race" canard is the most disingenuous crap white people throw at people of color. Race or skin color is the VERY FIRST thing you notice about a person. I notice it, you notice it, everyone notices it first. To claim otherwise, is offensive. We live in an environment that is whiteness. Everything is white. God is white, Jesus is white, Mary is white, the Easter Bunny is white, Santa Claus is white (I'm looking at you Megan Kelly), our heroes and heroines are white, our standard of beauty are white, our celebrated actresses and actors are white, our judiciary is white, our Congress is white, our President and his cabinet are white, every last Vice President since the founding of the US has been white, even the cast of Game of Thrones are white. White white white white white white white. The reason we keep talking pass one another is because you have this autistic-like focus on the individual. Let me be clear, I reject individualism. I reject individualism because white supremacists use individualism as a way to table the discussion of race. It's done in a way to say "Well, I'm not racist so I don't see the problem"; it's done to deny people of color their experience and to parrot this narrative that racism doesn't exist in this country. So, I don't really care what you, as the individual, think or do. It's not about you. It's about our white supremacist culture that demonizes and dehumanizes people of color. When you say "I'm not racist", it rings hollow because no one - and I mean no one - admits that they are racist. Stop and think about this. Can you name one person (you can even use fiction) who has admitted "Yes, what I did was racist and wrong". No white person does this. Ever. This merits repeating. White people can admit to homicide, theft, burglary, rape, incest, even bestiality, but they cannot admit their own racism. Even Dylann Roof who shot up 9 INNOCENT black church-goers wrote in the first line of his manifesto that he isn't from a racist home. Can you not grasp the cognitive dissonance there? Don't answer, btw, it was a rhetorical question.

Continued in the next post. . ..

TheEconomist said:

I never said you were not human. That is what you said about many people.



You expand pages upon pages about "white people," as if all white people are the same. On this thread and other, you are one of the few people who invoke race at every turn. I don't give a damn about the color of your skin, or that of anyone else for that matter.



You seem to be unaware of an obvious fact: millions of white people did not vote for Trump and hundreds of thousands of black people did.

The only thing tearing the US apart are people who insist on seeing everything as a matter of skin color. Not all black people are the same. Not all white people are the same. Not all hispanic people are the same. Not all asian people are the same... Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking "How can I make sure my race has an edge over other races?" The truth is that most people have other things on their mind. In the real world, people think about their rent, not about the skin color of the guy who flips burgers at the local McDonald's or that of their accountant for that matter.

The idea that millions of people across states, continents and time somehow align their behavior following a handful of arbitrary variables like the color of their skin or what dangles or not between their legs is ludicrous. Even if everyone was a deep racist, this narrative would run headfirst into the wall because of an obvious truism: no matter how much anyone hates you, I can guarantee you they like themselves more than they hate you. That idea comes from Thomas Sowell, a man whose beliefs stand starkly at odds with yours but ... wait for it ... he is black. He actually believes nearly every single policy you support did more to hurt black people than Jim Crow laws and perhaps even slavery -- and that actually is a paraphrase of his opinion, not mine.

Click to expand...

Continued from the post above.

You will never understand my experience. And, because you have autism, you're unequipped to even empathize or sympathize, it is useless to try. But, to give you an analogy. Imagine it's the presidential campaign of 2032 and it's Louis Farrakhan vs. Mitt Romney; all of the minorities voted for and elected Louis Farrakhan as US President. Throughout the campaign, Farrakhan puts out rhetoric that dehumanizes white people, painting them as criminal, gun-crazed freeloaders, and disease-ridden colonizers. He claims after centuries of inbreeding and mixing with Neanderthals and left them with inferior genes and higher autism rates than other ethnic groups. He cherry-picks statistics to back up his claims. He constantly slips up and makes anti-Semitic and anti-European jokes but puts out half-hearted apologies; these weak apologies are lapped up by the media as sincere and genuine. Farrakhan advocates mandatory minimums for drinking and driving (Farrakhan picks D&D to specifically target whites) and demands the USAF replace the regular salute with the Wakanda Forever salute. When Farrakhan's unpresidential flaws are brought up, minorities make excuses for Farrakhan "He's a counterpuncher" or "His leadership style is different" or "He was voted to shake up Washington". If Farrakhan puts little white babies in cages, minorities are either indifferent or they blame the white parents: "We must follow our laws and protect our border". When white folk question minorities (who are also poor and will also be hurt by Farrakhan's polices) on why they voted for Farrakhan, minorities say some weird **** like "The Republican party was too much into helping white folks, I prefer if you guys stopped that " or "Yeah, I'm a farmer, I desperately want to sell my pork to foreign markets, I realize Farrakhan will pull us out of TPP" or "I realize that I am fifth generation farmer with loads of debt and razor-thin profit margins, I know I am going to lose money and be less better off, but I am voting for Farrakhan anyway because I didn't like Mitt Romney's comments about the 47%". How would you feel about people of color after voting someone as vociferously anti-white as Farrakhan into the Presidency? Again, don't answer, this is a rhetorical question.

And, with that, I'm done. While I had high hopes for a great discussion, it is clear to me that this is a waste of time. Enjoy the rest of your week.

Peace

calamity said:

That's not the question. Sowell said slavery and Crow were less harmful to blacks than the WOP. That's hackish bull****.

Agreed?


look up

Click to expand...

why did he claim that? were you actually able to understand his point? Could it be that he found that blacks had managed to overcome much of the pernicious impacts of slavery and jim crow laws, but then were handicapped by the dependency and social pathologies created by the welfare state?

My ancestors paid a blood price for this. Not sure why I would need to pay reparations in the form of cash payments to black people.

Your ancestors were enslaved.

My ancestors died to free them.

My ancestors won and now you're free, but they died to make it happen.

That's enough, imho.

Double post.

calamity said:

Sowell is a RW hack. There is that.

Click to expand...

I picked him as an example of someone who holds views Huey Freeman would call "racist," which is especially ridiculous when it comes from a black man. The point is that it is ludicrous to call people "racist" because they have conservative points of view. For one thing, those views are widely echoed among many groups of very different people. Clearly, they're not racist against themselves, though it wouldn't be the first time someone engages in such mental contortions.

TurtleDude said:

why did he claim that? were you actually able to understand his point? Could it be that he found that blacks had managed to overcome much of the pernicious impacts of slavery and jim crow laws, but then were handicapped by the dependency and social pathologies created by the welfare state?

Click to expand...

He made this point in reference to family ties.

Families survived separations imposed by slavery and the civil war, with people seeking their relatives sometimes decades after the end of the war. We also have census data showing trends such as growing proportions of young black people marrying in the first 6 decades of the 20th century. Fathers were also more present in black families in the 1960s than in the 1990s -- it could also be the late 1980s, I cannot recall. He then pointed out that these trends reversed abruptly in the 1960s and 1970s.

I would have to dig up the exact quote, but this is the gist of what he said. Obviously, he used a rhetorical flourish, but his comments were far more nuanced than it sounds. Besides the hyperbole, he merely said the above claims made sense and fall exactly in line with what critiques of welfare programs said would happen in advance, that these claims were disregarded entirely and diametrically opposed consequences were assumed to follow by people who pushed for those policies. It's likely not to be just about welfare programs, but it does suggest a completely opposite view faces very serious problems.