New York Times hires openly racist Editorial Board member

Post Reply New Topic

@Daniel89: SZWell has a point.

You're basically implying that most whites are bootlickers and that most non-whites hate white people.

I just wanted some clarification-

He either thinks discrimination towards whites is accepted because of an initial effect of minorities and as they increase in number so should their rhetoric or he doesn't see any correlation with white people being discriminated against and minorities, but just assumes they'll become marginalized by the result of nothing else but a sheer loss in numbers

I find both of those things problematic.

Dog whistles are definitely a problem and have made discussing politics almost impossible/most divisive thing to do among non-partisan ties. It's like we speak different languages. Words have little meaning and facts just trample behind. I don't think the term dog whistle's the problem here

For just an example- conservatives have used nominally positive words and gave them negative connotations and have shaped just about all political discourse/arguments. Populism, globalism, socialism, liberal media, etc. been framed to mean someone's against American values. I feel a need to call out dog whistles because the only other option would be engaging in bad faith arguments.

As for your first point: You can assume that shifting demographics would change who's discriminated against the most but saying that it's tolerated and would only get worse would be saying that there's currently a direct correlation

Yes, and the politics that they hide behind are both racist and sexist, I hope it all comes out in the wash someday.

The really sad and disgusting thing I'm learning about an unfortunately high quantity of people, either a slight majority or really large minority, is that they're just apes looking to corn-cob each other. Their existence as such also disfigures the priorities of the people around them as they have to spend so much time on defense or trying to navigate the kinds of deliberate convolutions and cut-throat games these people create.

I've pretty much given up talking to people who come at things in bad faith at this point, mainly because I know that their comparative prioritization of truth as well as their almost purely instrumental use of language as a means of winning rather than moving toward truth makes it obvious that I'd be talking past them and whatever I'd have to say would be of no interest to them and, in turn, talking to them just serves to further tarnish my take on humanity.



I might ask how familiar you are with people like Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying? They're both progressives, the main oddity for them is that they're both biology professors (or were at least) hence they have a more naturalistic and evoltutionary-psychology based take on what's happening in culture. I hear them, and a lot of progressives even, talk about a split in the language on the left where most people left of center want to help the oppressed, an unfortunately vocal and powerful minority want to 'turn the tables' of oppression, and they can't tell each other apart easily because they both use the same language - just that one means what they say while the other is acting out something much different.

The take conservatives have of people across the isle seems to be mixed. They were critical of certain things that almost no one left of center was criticizing for a long time until the late 2000's when guys like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher started breaking ranks on certain issues. OTOH though you're right that a lot of conservatives eviscerate what accurate criticism they do have with a lot of cultural conservatism, religious conservatism, and other forms of baggage. That's part of what makes people like the IDW particularly interesting - ie. they're the closest thing I've seen recently to a group of people having the intellectual and factual strengths of both sides with far fewer of the weaknesses and blind spots.


Since you're the one arguing with him and not me I won't tell you how to do it. I'm not sure if your bad faith detector is set quite the same way mine is, I personally doubt I'd throw him in that bin, but I'm probably not going to lecture you their either because those kinds of determinations are complex.

I think the main point I wanted to make is we have a way of exerting the will of the people we like the least in the world at times, quite unwittingly, and it's really unfortunate. It would be great if it were more common for people to want to look into sociology, complex issues, and try to hash it out at the deepest level they were capable of but unfortunately that's a relatively fine sliver of nerds in the population.

Dog whistle...

I know you're still beating your wife. Which you'll deny...

That isn't a fair comparison at all.

Daniel was talking about the possibility of whites becoming a minority. This was very likely a subtle reference to the modern refugee crisis.

Since when did SZWell talk about physically assaulting women? You just pulled that out of your rear end.

Yes, that's the point. I have no more proof that he beats his wife than he has proof Daniel89 is racist. It's not a racist post.

I'm familiar with the Sam Harris's, Maher's and Richard Dawkins of the world but not Bret Weinstein or Heather Heying unfortunately. There are those who want to change the effects of discrimination by promoting progressive and egalitarian policies and some who want a complete overthrow of the system but I don't know if there are any legitimate factions of progressives who's main objective is oppression or could have any cogent plans tantamount to the oppression faced by minorities. I could be wrong and wouldn't mind being enlightened.




The comment he made was vague but lead on some strong assumptions, I don't think anyone can responsibly make such claims, which is how I called it

He directly correlated minorities to white oppression based on nothing other than race--without political power and said it would only get "worse" after they're the majority.

How else would you interpret this?

Well right, and to the extent that you found out about people trying to do that they won't be legitimate progressives - it's the opposite of what the term implies.

If I'm offering new names here though, in addition Bret and Heather, I think I'd also have to offer Bret's brother Eric Weinstein (mathematician who has a lot of interest in economics and social policy) as well as Jonathan Haidt whose been writing and speaking cogently about tribalism, partisan psychology, and Balkanization in American and western politics for close to a decade. They all have some pretty good long-form lectures and interviews on Youtube but I think most of them are at their best in interviews and on debate/discussion panels.

Man, I'm so bad with hoarding lectures and articles on my laptop but will do!

Last edited by SZWell on 03 Aug 2018, 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, while it is possible to be racist against your own race, it's very rare. So for starters it's just simple numbers, there will be more racists the more minorities you introduce. And they'll find each other and grow bolder and more powerful and try to make additional racists from the minority population, of whom they'll have more to choose from. And if there are less whites and you're white, the more likely the target is you.

Now you asked him the question why, and I have no problem with that, it's the right thing to do, but you branded him racist anyway and it sounded like you've already made your mind up that he is racist whatever he says.

I said his post and several that he's made like it were openly racist, which I stick too. The picture you're creating up there assumes that morality in a minority-majority will certainly erode. I mean, I'm not naive, it's possible anywhere but to assume it will definitely, "only get worse" is racist



He basically said this, if you didn't miswrite this then I don't know if anything can be disabused here.

It's not racist. If you started filling Japan with white people Japanese would experience more racism due to the racists within. Especially if from poorer less developed white countries or areas.

Yes I did. To clarify as the non white population grows so does racism and discrimination against whites, much of this discrimination is backed by law and the elite.