A quick quote from Jefferson

Post Reply New Topic

My primary/secondary education did not have any liberal bent at all (as mentioned before, most of my teachers were far-right) and I don't watch television.


I must have missed that... never seen any place where I've been told I have to be submissive toward blacks.


Just curious, as earlier in the conversation you seemed bitter/upset about what you perceived as preferential treatment toward blacks in employment. It seems to me that trying to "fight fire with fire," if you will, will just perpetuate mistrust and hatred and make the problem worse.


I had nothing to do with any warning, and I would not support any attempt to muzzle your views here. "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it."


How is this "our own country?" We are all immigrants, even the "Native" Americans. "My own country" is Ireland or Scotland, but none of my ancestors have lived there for generations.

I think that most people only notice a "bias" if it happens to be a bias they disagree with. Not consciously, but passively rather is how I think this works.

This is perhaps true, but the fact remains that my public school teachers were largely YECs and neo-cons. More than one of my teachers openly advocated for torture, warrantless wiretapping, and all the other blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention immoral, policies of the Bush administration.

I think Hanotaux is being a bit disingenuous.

While she may well be looking to win the argument for the "hearts and minds" of the middle, that is not the impression that I get from her posts. Rather I get the impression of a fairly deliberate strategy to alternately rubbish the arguments of, and belittle the characters of those who oppose her points of view.

Referring to one's opponents as "shills" and "drones" is not reasoned argument. Now, I have no problem with someone labelling his opponents as mental midgets, but I do have a problem with someone doing so and then complaining that their arguments aren't being taken seriously.

So I then ponder whether the same has happened to Hanotaux. Has the word, "racist," been thrown into the hopper uncritically? I am genuinely not sure. I disagree, sometimes stridently, with almost all of what she espouses. Does that make her a racist? I am not persuaded. I think that much of the public policy that she advocates will lead to a continued gap between the economic well being of haves and have-nots, with a resulting disparity of performance of ethnic communities at a macroeconomic level. Are those, therefore, racist policies? Here I think that we are getting closer to the mark.

I think my liberal credentials are pretty well established here (although I haven't checked to see if I have accumulated enough "ethnic" friends to get my frequent-bleeding-heart card), so I am not going to bother reiterating my views on diversity.

But what I will say is that there is a meaningful public policy discussion to be had here, and it is not served by stridency.

I’ve made this point to others before, and I’ll make it again: Communism killed millions upon millions in the name of equality. So why do you not consider your blank-slate-ism to be “somewhat dangerous”?

In 1950s America the majority of people believed the races were different and accepted it as a fact of life, while racial egalitarians were on the “fringe”. In the 1950s America still practiced racial segregation, many states had anti-miscegenation laws, and the country’s immigration system was designed to maintain the USA as a predominantly White country. Now in modern day America the majority of people profess to believe in racial equality (although the phenomenon of White Flight suggests many do not practice what they preach).

So – and I’d like to open up this question to everybody - what has caused this change in attitude?

Perhaps brave Galileo-like psychologists (those ‘soft’ scientists) made discoveries in the 60s and 70s (with their multi-choice question sheets and primitive EEG skullcaps) that so conclusively proved the racial egalitarians right that the political and media elites (who, despite typically being graduates in business or law, actually hang onto cognitive scientists’ every word) and the great unwashed (who are themselves all keen followers of research science literature, of course) all experienced damascene conversions, leaving only a few gap-toothed, inbred hicks unable to see the light? Or is it perhaps more likely that it is simply the nature and aims of the power elites that have changed, and that they have manufactured consent among the masses accordingly? In other words: is this general change in racial attitudes over a matter of decades chiefly down to science, or is it chiefly down to politics and power?

If it is down to science, then I’d really like to see the clincher. I mean, since different races mean different gene pools, and genotype influences phenotype, and the races are so obviously different in appearance (and even in susceptibility to various diseases), then Occam’s Razor would suggest that genetic differences would also contribute to behavioural differences (which might help explain some of the things that are routinely put down to colonialism, slavery, racism, "culture" and pretty much anything else). So where is this great scientific discovery that conclusively demonstrates that the races differ in terms of genes that code only for physical appearance and for nothing else?

PS – Orwell, people over the age of 13 really should not be saying things like “meh”.

To that, I say, "Meh."

Sometimes it is the most appropriate vocalization with which to express oneself.

There's no evidence for this elsewhere in science, why would it be assumed with humans?

Mabye though some people with AS are 'terrible racists' who may have indeed been influenced and scarred by negative life experiences. Its no secret that minority gangs can be 'in your face' to say the least, especially in diverse schools.

You can do what you want of course with your site, but to censor non-PC views and give the impression that almost all Aspies outwardly conform to the diversity crowd I think is a bit disingeunous. If people with AS hold non-PC views and express them, than so be it. It may not be pleasant but at least it will offer the truth.......... and people won't just read these forums getting only one side of AS political views. Trying to 'filter' the AS image is I think wrong as people with AS come from all over the political spectrum, not just the multicultural-loving crowd.

You can do what you want though obviously. I have many blogs I run, some even for business purposes for websites I promote. I can say what I please on there so I'm really not bothered too much by the party line but of course I will stay if you will have me.

http://elite-tights.blogspot.com/



I disagree completely.

For me, when it comes to Art, I've always felt that "less is more" Too many ingredients ruin the stew. When painting, Its best to keep it simple. If you throw too many colors on there, the mural just becomes a tacky eyesore.

Better to have ethnically homogenous nation-states.

Skafather wrote:


I did directly answer the question and all your questions so I don't see why you think this.



I don't want any insitutionalized preferences at all. I don't care who an individual chooses to hire as long as they are not directed to choose from a shortlist, not now or in the future.

I have no desire to "force friendships" with our 'new neighbors.' However, if people wish to hire who they please, be they black or white, than that is their own business.



As I said earlier, I feel a distinctively American culture developed in the 1700's and 1800's, producing distinctively American white cultural figures. Being an American white has the exact same integrity as being White British or White German, though England and Germany have been around a bit longer.

Saying that something, "is no secret," does not demonstrate that it is factual. If your evidence is anything other than anecdotal, I would be pleased to see it.



As far as I am aware, the only piece of this discussion that was censored was a remark that you admitted might have been over the line. As far as I am concerned, you can enunciate your, "non-PC" views to your heart's content.

Oh, and your use of the bugbear of censorship is a textbook example of disingenuousness.



No, it will offer conflicting points of view.

Niether of which might qualify as, "truth," incidentally.



Finally, a statement that I agree with.



So are we discussing the substantive issue, or the analogy?



Good luck finding many. North Korea probably qualifies. I doubt that there are many others.



This is a warped impression of how employment equity practices work in the real world.

More to the point, since I am a public sector manager, who I hire is not just my business, it is the business of the government that entrusts me to do my job, and of the the electorate that put them into office. Since most affirmative action programs are limited to publicly funded institutions, that is the correct lens to use.

Obviously, if you are talking about non-discrimination laws, then that is a different matter, but then your "shortlist" argument falls away.



Your feelings run contrary to every history that I have ever read of the United States. (And in this country, we read a significant number of them, given the degree to which our fortunes are tied to you).

The United States began as an amalgam of distinct political entities that threw themselves together like ferrets in a bag. The US Constitution was the product not of some monolithic "American culture" but of cold, hard, practical negotiation and compromise. The United States began as a federation because no other political structure could possibly have accommodated the divergent political cultures of the 13 colonies (let alone the 37 states that were to follow).

Furthermore, as the United States expanded, both geographically and economically, that practical negotiation and compromise had to find new expression. The attempt to create one, single, national identity nearly destroyed the country in the 19th century, and the reality, since Reconstruction, has been that there is no singular, American identity.

The same goes for "White British" culture. Britain is composed of not less than 4 cultural identities, 6 if you expand to include the "British Isles." (English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Manx--each with their own distinct languages). As for "White German," it bears noting that Germany didn't even exist as a nation state until 1851, and even then was anything but homogenous.

Certain mental conditions are genetically conditioned, for example bi-polar disorder, paranoia and schizophrenia. These conditions certainly have behavioral manifestations.

ruveyn

You did catch the part where I said the wordy equivalent of, "oops, sorry, I must have let my own bias filter through BUT I SHOULD NOT HAVE," right? This makes it sound like you may have missed that part.

Yes but not a direct universal correlation between race and specific behavior patterns.

My "white" family immigrated here in the 1950's. My parent's nationality was not a part of any immigration waves in the 1700's or 1800's. So ... I'm not really an American white, then, under this logic, am I?

Just because we're not a visibly different group, doesn't mean we aren't just as much invaders as the next guy. Seriously, if you want to treat all groups equally, you have to hate me. And not just for being a liberal, but for not belonging here under your logic.

Easy. Globalization. The affordability of air travel among the masses (when my parents immigrated in the 1950's going across the sea was still something you tended to do once and permanently), widespread use of global communication tools, and the realization of a global economy.

It takes a little time for life to adapt to the changes that precede it, but once ordinary people started vacationing in, and attending school in, far off lands on a regular basis, everything became destined to change.

I would guess that one could scientifically correlate the emergence of diversity as a value in a population with the level of optional migration that exists within it.

I've simplified a little, but not much.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 23 Aug 2010, 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A white guy busted stealing.

You gotta watch out for those white guys. They dress poorly and can't be trusted to not steal the coins from a dead old woman's eyes.