Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
Grayparrot, get a load of this:
continue being a little shit and get blocked
haha the mouth on this child
Created:
Posted in:
The question of this thread is: Should we defund the police? And you answered no - now supplement that with your own argument
My response:
Thomas Sowell and Malcolm Gladwell . . . . [I] and incorporate their arguments here as my own. If this concept is too difficult for you understand then there really isn't a whole lot of point in speaking.
Your reply (decoded):
I do not want to read and learn, or understand anything. I just want to pretend like I know what I am talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
I reiterate:
If you are interested in substantively discussing the issues implicated by police misconduct, we can do that. But I haven't seen anything on your end that would suggest you are interested in doing so.It is almost as if you want me to tell you how right you are and how morally superior you are for wanting to defund the police. This is praise and affirmation you might get from the inept on twitter and woke leftist college kids and their professors, but no serious person thinks that defunding the police is a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It seems you don't understand what this means:
brazant appeals to authority
Also, "brazant" isn't a word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh so you aren't a fan of substantiation? Should 'ave guessed shouldn't I have? You don't want to actually face the big racist liberal, so you hide behind god - fitting that is
This is actually hilarious.
Here is the thread I was referring to: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5710/post-links/251821
You should also google who Thomas Sowell and Malcolm Gladwell are. They've both spent a lot of time considering these issues and they're credible experts (which you are not). They understand the attendant facts and circumstances surrounding these issues and the challenges they implicate (which you do not). I have some experience in these areas, but I'd defer to them and incorporate their arguments here as my own. If this concept is too difficult for you understand then there really isn't a whole lot of point in speaking.
Relatedly, when you learn that neither of them are white, consider what that means for your arguments.
I guess I will have to just lay plain for you what I thought was obvious, too.
If you are interested in substantively discussing the issues implicated by police misconduct, we can do that. But I haven't seen anything on your end that would suggest you are interested in doing so.
It is almost as if you want me to tell you how right you are and how morally superior you are for wanting to defund the police. This is praise and affirmation you might get from the inept on twitter and woke leftist college kids and their professors, but no serious person thinks that defunding the police is a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Now - had you your own argument to use - perhaps you'd be getting a more polite me - you threw that opportunity away whenever you decided to try to lecture me about identity politics ya prick.
Created:
Posted in:
I also enjoy the irony in that he is essentially calling Malcolm Gladwell and Thomas Sowell racists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A perfect example of what Jordan Peterson would typify as a "resentful" person, incapable of any lasting happiness.
Maybe. He just comes across to me as very opinionated, but he doesn't know what he is talking about. Which is typical, I guess. I was pretty opinionated and didn't have any idea what I was talking about at 14 too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I also read your profile, after that silly remark you made above.
Wooo boy, this one is fun to talk about, I'll just list 'em all first: Atheist, anti-theist, Progressive (Social Democrat), mostly pro democrat (kinda), BLM supporter, Pro-LGBTQI+, between compatibilist and determinist, pro-choice, soft ethical vegan, and subjective moralist. I could go on and on, but those are my primary positions about things. One thing to immediately get out of the way: By anti-theist I mean I would not want a god to exist - please check out my anti-theist AMA for more info there.
I pretty much expected this. It's always nice to know I can pretty much assume what your position is on anything just from reading a few sentences on your profile. Really simplifies things. Although I pretty much had this figured out from reading three of your posts. So not like I was surprised.
I'm an atheist because I do not find sufficient reason to believe in a god, and actually find evidence contradicting such a being's existence. This was what got me into debating, and though it isn't what I primarily debate anymore - the topic will always have a place in my heart because it literally lead me to debating. The anti-theist thing is easy - any being with infinite power is most likely to be corrupted infinitely - and if a god did exist that would at least explain the existing affairs on Earth.I am a progressive/social democrat because that's what I want - progress. Where people aren't required to pay for things that are required to live. It might sound a tad idealistic; however, free healthcare is already a thing in a lot of first world countries today - I believe that the purpose of society is to PROGRESS to the point to where people don't have to suffer to attain the things they need to literally survive, where everybody gets the same opportunity, and we are faaar away from that goal.Of course, I'm Pro_BLM, I feel like you guys (assuming people actually read this) were guessing I would go here - White people are more likely to be armed than black people, and are more likely to use their guns in "self-defence" - white people do relatively more crime, yet black people are killed at THREE times the rate white people are by police violence. That isn't to say I even like police, I am also for Defund the police, check out the topic I have on it to see more elaborated views.
Of course you are. Maybe you'd prefer talking to me about metaphysics than politics, though. Because you're not going to like talking to me about politics. I don't have an issue with your position on universal health care (although we might disagree about the mechanics of how that should work), though to the extent you're talking about BLM, the second amendment, identity politics or any racial issue of any kind I just can't take your opinions there seriously.
And you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously on issues like police reform when you begin with the position of "I am also for Defund the police," and say "check out the topic I have on it to see more elaborated views."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Though because I like YouTube videos, Jocko Willink has the best perspective on why defunding the police is a bad idea that I've seen yet. I don't see the point in repeating things others have said. If we want to talk about police reform, there's a meaningful conversation to be had there; but that's a very different question than whether we should "defund" the police. A good starting point on police reform would begin, on the left, with Malcolm Gladwell. And that would require dispensing with a lot of the standard narrative talking points that do not address the substance of the issues that police brutality implicates.
In my experience, the majority of the kids that want to talk about police reform do not actually care about reforming the police, however. Instead, they want to make arguments like "cops are racist and therefore should be defunded," or "the police are so bad that they cannot be reformed, and instead must be abolished." In the same instance, they also want to blame all bad things that happen to black people on external factors and ignore any potential internal causes; while attributing all good things that happen to black people to internal characteristics, while ignoring external causes.
But the problems with defining "blackness" as such. The concept of "black" identity is a figment of white liberals' imagination, just like the supposed external reasons why bad things happen to black people on the basis of their race (white privilege, institutional racism and the like). In this way, white liberals use black people as their political puppets while cloaking themselves in a moral superiority that can only be obtained from virtue signaling. It is perfectly acceptable for them to "paint" with that that broadest of brushes when defining blacks into the servient political position of perpetual victimhood; yet an atrocity to speak of trends in criminology of which we are all aware in statistically accurate terms. Thus, progress is never made yet in the same instance they create the fiction of movement towards it.
So if you expect me to take seriously any potential argument you have on "defunding the police," don't hold your breath. It's too stupid to even merit serious consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I didn't read your "argument," and do not expect that I will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Created:
Posted in:
Thomas Sowell on White Liberals Aiding and Abetting worst aspects of black culture (which white liberals themselves defined)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Mitchell assumes a very high educational level for his audience. The movie makes clear a lot of the connections that, if you aren't carefully paying attention to every word of the book, you'll miss.
It's my favorite book of all time. But the investment doesn't start to really pay off until you're about halfway through the book. Take your time with it and re-read chapters. Really think about what is happening and try to picture it in your mind.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you actually expect me to respond?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think we have drastically different takes on, "spinning it out of proportion". I think that one act more than warranted a ban, and with everything else, a permaban makes the most sense. Deliberately deceptive is the absolute best you could label Wylted as.
I would prefer to just see the underlying facts and form my own conclusion, but as Lunatic correctly states the thread at issue has since been deleted. However, the PMs I would prefer to see screenshots of.
That being said, because I only have hearsay accounts I am unable to form an opinion. It seems like there are some strongly held opinions that may have some level of underlying factual support. But the facts are really all I care about, and they're beyond my reach.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Most of the most graphic historical incidents of cultural destruction involve Islamic invaders forcibly converting pre-Islamic Africa to Islam.
But it's not like it was limited to the Islamic world. The so called "Chinese Cultural Revolution" and similar phenomena under the Khmer Rouge were as violent as Islamic invaders ever were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
The whole thing was completely taken out of context and spun to sound a lot worse than it was. I posted the link and David immediately deleted it lol
Can you PM me the link?
Created:
Posted in:
Also for everyone else, if you're looking for an overall easy, simple but beautifully written book that evokes Harry Potter and the best of YA fiction (but is still mature enough for an adult), you should read The Goldfinch.
The movie was terrible. Do not watch it unless you want to reflect on how bad a movie can be. However, the book won a Pulitzer Prize. I don't often like Pulitzer Prize winners (now they seem mostly like cultural affirmative action), but this one was well-deserved.
And when they're not engaged in outright cultural affirmative action, I feel like the Pulitzer Prize is like the Grammys.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Yeah. I read a lot.
Holy crap you've read a lot this year lol. I'll have to check out the Brad Thor books since you rates them so highly
I'm working my way through the Mitch Rapp series now. I think they get better as time goes on. The first three weren't that great. The fourth one is better.
Mass-market action-thrillers and spy novels have been a guilty pleasure of mine for a while, but I put them down when I started law school. But now that things are what they are, I've kind of taken a break from "serious literature" now. I've also by this point read everything that Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol and Turgenev have ever written so I think I've earned it.
The thing about these Brad Thor novels is that you can get through them in a weekend, and once you open it you're not going to want to put it down. Some of them are better than others, but they're always fresh. Another thing to note is that you can pretty much start anywhere in the series you want. They build on each other, but they're also fully contained within themselves.
I think the last three are the best in the series.
Overall, Brad Thor's writing is better than Tom Clancy, more fast-paced than John Le Carre and less "angsty" than Vince Flynn.
Another writer to keep in mind is Jack Carr, who is as good as Brad Thor (even if he has some annoying tendencies to brand-plug in his novels). Those books I'd suggest you read in order.
Both Brad Thor and Jack Carr have novels coming out later this year, available for pre-order (which I have).
I think I was an edgy 14 year old the last time I picked up a Tom Clancy novel lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Same.
Here's my list for 2020-2021 that I can easily recall (not related to work)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Singularity, he literally tried to pretend that he is a 13 year old girl to "flirt" with me, that couldn't be a good sign.
What exactly happened there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bugsy460
I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I'll DM you or you can get it from Speed (who has me on Discord).
Created:
Posted in:
If you four are competing, I might be interested in moderating.
What time would we be thinking; and can we use discord?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Can you provide more info on this:
Repeatedly glorifying sexual abuse towards minors, and most disturbingly,Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy
As an irrelevant and outdated member (and energy source), I am often far outsider the loop of the happenings here.
But if the above is true, it is deeply troubling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Since we can't build a time machine and go back to 1867 and force the Southern Culture to become more in line with Hard working and virtuous Northern Culture.And we also can't go back to 1997 when California embraced Ebonics as a genetic language based on skin color, discouraging people with Black skin and Southern Culture from integrating into the majority and objectively better Northern Culture as evidenced by the outcomes of the Civil War.What would you suggest today as a means to gradually eliminate Southern Culture from people of all skin colors beyond just toppling a few statues?How would you distribute these changes to tackle the pervasive Southern Culture ghettos entrenched in Northern urban centers and no longer confined to the geography south of the Mason-Dixon?
So that everyone is on the same page, Grayparrot is referring to Thomas Sowell's argument that much of what is regarded as "black culture" is the product of "cracker culture" inherited from Scottish highlanders in the northern part of the country.
I do not agree with Sowell's argument, there. I do not think that eliminating any culture is an appropriate response to the challenges faced by certain groups. I will think more about this and may post something further later on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Immediately after listing examples of black people being disproportionately affected by government policy you call it “stupid” to suggest it as evidence of systemic racism.
You're very close to what I was saying. The issue is with your use of the word "disproportionately," as if to imply that there was an "appropriate" portion of woe that might be visited upon people based on their belonging or not belonging to certain groups, whatever they may be.
We could explore, further, the absurdity of the socially constructed "black" identity; as if all black people unidimensional and monolithically are "the same," and that the only indicia of "diversity" is predicated upon the level of melanin in one's skin; but that's a much more complicated subject. We'll keep our eyes on the ball, for now.
It seems to me that you think I think that inequity isn't a problem. And that is wrong. It's a terrible problem. The question is what is to be done about it. And I object to beginning that discussion from the perspective that black people in general are nothing more than the product of their history, when history is replete with exceptionalism within the context of black Americans at virtually every level (obviating the "white privilege" or "institutional racism" or other collectivist explanations as to how we got where we are).
You sound like you acknowledge it is, but then go on to blame it on the democrats and government intervention, but neither of those are relevant to the question.
Actually what I said was that if the "white privilege" or "institutional racism" conspiracy theory was true, then we'd have to assume that society got vastly more racist after the Johnson administration and the end of Jim Crow --- which is completely absurd.
The question of systemic racism has nothing to do with who is at the top with respects to the beneficiaries of government policy, it’s about who is at the bottom.
On a fundamental level I agree that inequality is a problem; but the problem that *can* be addressed is inequality of opportunity, not inequality of outcome (which is a problem that, to the extent it is addressed, will only make things worse). And that is why, in particular, I object to even use of the language of "systemic racism" because the problem of inequitable outcome cannot be solved at that same level of analysis that it's identified --- which is the beginning and end of what the so-called progressive left endeavors to offer.
Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in government policy in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?
Yes, although your question should not have been limited to "government policy" --- that is a part of it, but it's not just "the government" that's implicated in why sociocultural and socioeconomic factors explain inequitable outcomes.
You should have asked:
Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in the society in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?
The answer doesn't change. It's still a "yes."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
but don’t seem to care much about whether it is even a real thing
Maybe you missed the part above where I said:
As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that suggest that non-congruent outcomes among particular (and largely non-representative) samples of non-majority ethnic groups have it worse than equally non-representative samples of majority ethnic groups.In reality, to the extent that any such differences appear in the data (and they do in certain aspects, like criminal sentencing for example); there is essentially no evidence that could even be misinterpreted to support the proposition that race (or ethnicity) explains these differences, much less causes them. Further, once you broaden the scope of whatever you're looking at (basically no matter what it is that you're focusing on), at least before 2020 things tended to be looking better compared to, for example, criminal sentencing disparities in the 1930s-1970s. This should be unsurprising, given that as a society racism is regarded as intolerable by basically everyone with any sense, and the cultural norms associated with discriminating based on race have shifted....I am not saying that there were never systemic issues that disproportionately adversely affected black people, if there was any question. Three strikes laws absolutely did, drug sentencing practices relevant to crack certainly did and so called crime reform at the behest of the 1990s democrats did more damage than anything else. But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic. What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better. Also, sentencing disparities increased after the 94 crime bill.
See post 20.
I am not disputing outcome inequity; I literally said it was reflected in the data, and provided several examples of where in particular it is found. You will be hard pressed to find a single axiom on which "equity" is demonstrated between any majority and non-majority group in any context, anywhere in the United States or the world in general.
What we are talking about is what non-equitable outcomes actually mean; how do we explain them? Are they evidence of "institutional racism" and "white privilege" or are they something else? See what I said in post 26:
What we are really talking about here is how inequality of outcome can be normatively explained. So, what's the story we're telling ourselves to explain why some groups seem to succeed while other groups do not. It's also worth considering whether the black-white duality is really the best. Because no matter how you shake the data, there is always at least one (and often three or more) groups that out-perform whites as a group (and have for decades).
Again, so there is absolutely no room for either miscommunication or any further misinterpretation:
I am not saying that there aren't differences across racial groups with respect to outcomes in myriad factors. There is no possible way that what I am saying here can be misinterpreted unless you are engaged in some kind of bad faith here, which I don't think you are.
What I am saying is that those data points do not establish "white privilege" or "institutional racism." So we are talking about what inequitable outcome means, rather than whether there is inequitable outcome.
Do you understand the difference, conceptually, between (1) arguing about the meaning of inequitable outcomes (which assumes, as I have here, that inequitable outcomes exist and can be demonstrated with evidence); and (2) arguing that there are no inequitable outcomes?
Further, do you understand that we are talking about (and I am specifically addressing) the former, rather than the latter?
Having now had at least a second opportunity to review what I said, do you now still hold the position that "but don’t seem to care much about whether [outcome inequity] is even a real thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
North shore or south shore?
Created:
Posted in:
List below:
1. 90s kids TV shows
2. Harry Potter Characters
3. The Swamp (i.e., American politicians of current and recent office)
4. Netflix Criminal TV shows
5. Clothing Brand Stereotypes
6. James Bond Movies
7. Action/Thriller Novels
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
You're probably right. I was wondering if he might have been someone else, though. But idk.... your guess is better than mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow. Well, New Orleans is a place I have never had a desire to go.
I like parts of the deep south (like Savannah, GA), but New Orleans less so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is also a cultural aspect to this that transcends mere skin color or race.Sowell explains that the Black Redneck culture that migrated north was instantly and widely celebrated by the progressive left as endemic of the Black Race and used as a justification for all sorts of sinister policies.
I'm not sure I agree with everything in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, but I agree with a lot of it.
Created:
For me, it depends on the game. I don't like wins based on technicalities or gimmicks.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Who were you on DDO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I did not actually realize you were past your 40s. In any case, while I've heard that from several people and I think you're probably right, I haven't read everything he's written and my exposure to what he has written is mostly through the interpretations (or re-imaginations) of others.
I can talk about MLK because I know his writing inside and out, as well as the influences that got him where he was. I can only speak in generalities about Malcolm X because he's outside the scope of what I'm familiar with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That insanity about Covington was something I won't soon forget. Maybe the next time we play mafia I'll tell some of the stories of how that incident played out in my office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know less about Malcolm X than I do about MLK, but I'm generally familiar with both. MLK was, for me, just far more compelling figure.
MLK's intellectual history traced subjects that I have been interested for some time, particularly his interest in Tolstoy's theological scholarship (which formed the basis for Gandhi's movement in India, which in many ways inspired MLK's actions during the Civil Rights movement).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I absolutely love Thomas Sowell. He definitely doesn't give 2 fucks about how his opinions come across to the general population.
Yeah, he's really excellent. I wish there were more like him.
Reading your post, I wonder how you feel about the rise of the acceptance of Conspiracy theories from all sides and how it might coincide with the current age of Corporate media disinformation and targetted censorship?
I think bad actors from inside and outside the United States are becoming increasingly capable of manipulating social issues relevant to the United States to weaken the country and Americans as a people.
I also think that woke capitalism is just about the grandest form of stupidity since progressives in the late 19th and early 20th century thought that eugenics was a good idea, and they engaged in tactics that the Chinese Communist Party is currently using to wage a genocide in Xinjiang.
Progressivism and "expertise" have a particularly dark history in the United States, and that dark history is something we forget at our peril.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The broader question your comment here implicates is at what level each individual black man or woman's (or child's) identity is defined.That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I certainly understand and take issue with perceiving the world through identification of groups as some sort of collective. The world is made up of individuals all acting in their own personal interests, and it irritates me when someone suggests that the successes or hardships of any individual somehow carries over to the rest of their group.
Yes. It's the point I was making. I also share your frustration on those other points. Collective salvation or guilt are both anathema; we rise and fall by the work of our own hands, and while the circumstances in which we find ourselves may constrain the set of choices we have, we're all accountable only for the choices we make within that context. Or, said less abstractly, it's how you play the hand you're dealt that matters.
But with that said, the world is an interconnected place. The decisions of one affects the circumstances of others, and the level of opportunity one has to succeed is dictated by the totality of those choices. So when you live in a country where success makes it easier to succeed and a country with a history of making it harder for anyone with your skin color to succeed, and then you look around and people with your skin color are doing worse than everyone else, all you have to do is put two and two together to understand why.
I'm reminded of a scene from Fresh Prince of Bel Air where Carlton is pulled over in Beverly Hills. I agree that race isn't irrelevant, just like intellectual ability, innate attractiveness, personality, trait conscientiousness and trait openness all play a role in how we fare in the world. The question relates to the starting point: if you're black, and particularly if you're a black man, do you begin from the position of "I can't succeed in the society because of how racist the system is, therefore I'm not even going to try"?
There's a story Thomas Sowell relates about what a young black teenage boy who wanted to join the air force told him. This was back in the 1980s when, by all counts, things were very different. The kid thought he couldn't join the air force because he assumed that the military wouldn't let a black man be a pilot. This was, of course, well after the Tuskegee Airmen distinguished themselves with tremendous valor in WWII.
And to be clear, that isn't a uniquely racial issue. It's an individual choice issue. And sure, culture, our surroundings and the people in our lives influence what choices we make as an individual (for better or worse). But the victimhood narratives constructed by white progressives reinforce the structures that channel young black boys and girls into making the same choices that keep poverty and disenfranchisement cyclical. So, it's a feedback loop of despair.
It's worth contrasting that feedback loop with, for example, how black African immigrants to the United States typically fare (even including those for whom English is not their primary language). They out earn their American counterparts, their kids attend and graduate from college at considerably higher rates, and they often start off worse when they come to the United States than most. Nigerian immigrants in particular thrive in the United States. And if there were such a thing as systemic or institutional racism, you'd expect it to limit them far more.
What we are really talking about here is how inequality of outcome can be normatively explained. So, what's the story we're telling ourselves to explain why some groups seem to succeed while other groups do not. It's also worth considering whether the black-white duality is really the best. Because no matter how you shake the data, there is always at least one (and often three or more) groups that out-perform whites as a group (and have for decades).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
insinuation that the left and the right are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to their belief in conspiracy theories.
That wasn't what I was insinuating. At a low level of resolution, both "believe" in conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence. The nature of the conspiracy theories they believe in, however, is significantly different.
The right has been taken over by a belief that Trump really did win the 2020 election but it was stolen by democrats who didn’t bother to retain their own seats in the House or pull a few more in the senate. The left has been taken over by a belief that women and minorities are still fighting back against discrimination. These are not remotely similar.
I suppose I see how what I wrote could have unintentionally conveyed that I was equivocating between the fringe right and the fringe left. At the very low level of resolution I was addressing, they are similar. At higher levels of resolution, they differ. I pointed out several of the differences; particularly the nature of the conspiracy theories they believe in and the role those false narratives play in the society and political culture.
The point of what I wrote is not to say "both sides are equally bad," which I think is the meaning you took from what I said. Passing blame isn't an enterprise I want to partake in; nor within the scope of topics I am interested in discussing. Both sides have their faults, and people disagree about those faults. I have my own perspective on that subject, though I view even stating it here as an imprudent use of my time.
We should be clear, though, that belief in the conspiracy theories that characterize the narrative overtures of the left wing (white privilege, the patriarchy, etc.) is more than the belief that women and minorities are still fighting against discrimination. Those conspiracy theories are predicated on, at once, a rejection of individualism / rejection of "the individual" as such; and the view that the world can only be understood through inter-group competition between oppressed and oppressor --- which is the central source of the problem.
systemic racism
It would be naïve of you to claim that I have misunderstood, and the fact that people regard such things as axiomatically true is a source of trouble itself. For your general edification, there are two books you should consult in this order:
1. Intellectual and Race, by Thomas Sowell; and
2. Intellectuals and Society, by Thomas Sowell.
Assume for the purposes of our discussion that I incorporate those by reference here.
The broader question your comment here implicates is at what level each individual black man or woman's (or child's) identity is defined. It's the answer to the question: Who am I? Am I an individual with merit and value to offer society and the world, in control of my own fate and accountable for my own choices; or am I nothing more than an indistinguishable unit within the broader collective, of a group whose identity is at once defined, appraised and manipulated by white leftists?
The problem with the leftist-collectivist narrative is that it strips black people of their individuality and agency; forcing them in to the category of "black" defined socioculturally and sociopolitically by those who endeavor to exert power over all who would fall within that category. And in this way, the individual is subsumed into the collective; the collective is manipulated by those who define it and purport to "act on behalf of" it --- white leftists.
The narrative of "systemic racism" is the means by which white leftists categorize people according to the pigment of their skin into groups whose victimhood they use for their political purposes. Consider whether if the dream was ever truly achieved, realized in our life, if we walked together to the promise land; where does that leave the "advocate"? Without a purpose, of course, which is the reason why "the struggle" against narratives like institutional racism must remain; and indeed be stressed, with ever-increasing urgency, as its true and once-underlying utility falls by the historical wayside.
Am I an individual? Or am I someone else's charity project?
Further consider the practical utility of viewing your neighbor as your enemy, to the interests of those who exert control over you. If poor white people are hated by black people; and black people hate poor white people, what will never happen? They certainly will never cooperate along the lines of their mutual political interests, like reforming the tax code and labor law regime to protect their jointly held economic interests. Instead, poor white republicans will decry the "fraud" of so called "welfare queens" and demand that the social safety net be demolished while all blacks will see the face of their perceived "oppression" instantiated in the faces of LBJ's forgotten men.
When MLK realized this, the FBI had him killed. It's worth keeping that in mind.
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
I haven't read your debates, but I assume you're probably doing the things that most kids do when they come up with arguments in support of or against particular resolutions.
The first thing you want to do is identify a well-stated resolution. So, something that is clear and simple is what should be preferred. For example, you might look at the Lincoln Douglas or Public Forum debate topics from around 2008-2017 or so. I think after then, they kind of went down-hill.
The second thing you want to do is try to learn about the topic before you go about writing an argument. After all, how could you possibly have an opinion on something if you don't know what you are talking about? Spend some time doing this. Like a minimum of at least four or five hours.
The third thing you want to do is to think about the best possible arguments for and against the resolution. So, map them out in your head or write them out. Whatever you need to do so that you can understand and talk about the issues that a debate topic raises, do that. In the course of that process, try to think about how you would support the arguments for and against the resolution with the facts you learned.
But wait! If it turns out that you're having trouble doing this, that might mean you need to do more research into the topic itself. Think of this like a lather-rinse-repeat cycle of coming to understand a topic. You're going to have to go back do doing research probably three or four times, at an absolute minimum for the simplest topics. For more complex topics, it could be ten or twelve.
Only then are you finally ready to outline and write your arguments.
By then you have all your evidence lined up and you know how they all fit together like a puzzle. And then when you write your arguments, you need to be thinking about this central question: What do I need to do in order to win this debate? So, that means (a) what is my burden of proof, (b) what is my opponent's burden of proof and (c) how do I meet my burden while preventing him from meeting his?
Each argument you make should entail your position on the resolution. So, there needs to be a direct link between the arguments you make and the resolution you're arguing about. That means that stuff that is extraneous to the resolution doesn't help you. For example, if you're debating about whether holding an impeachment trial in the senate is a constitutional undertaking, you can't cite to evidence that the senate may also be able to undertake a separate process to disqualify such president from ever holding future office, and expect that to help you win your case. The debate is about one thing, and if you're talking about something else, you're not winning. Said less abstractly, keep your eye on the ball.
This should get you going on the right track.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Bringerofrain
Is there a single good argument as to why the morning after pill should be banned or is this really about controlling a woman's body. I used to give some credence to republican arguments and believe them that they actually cared about the unborn child, but I realized when they opposed the morning after pill, that it really was about controlling a woman's body. Republican, explain why you want control of another person's body.
The debate over when life begins is philosophically complicated, abstract and an area where reasonable people can disagree for moral, religious, pragmatic or other reasons. So, I don't see framing the question of whether the morning after pill should be legal or sold in that context as particularly helpful.
The question is whether, given the fact that reasonable people can and do disagree on essentially all of the issues implicated by this and all other issues relevant to abortion, at what point is it acceptable to constrain an individual's liberty/freedom and give the state power over another's bodily autonomy.
This is a "women's" issue, but it's also more than that, because what we are really talking about is empowering the state to limit individual freedom and autonomy.
Regardless of the varying conceptualizations from philosophical, religious, practical and other perspectives; the point at which a fetus is medically viable seems to be the clearest place to draw the line in the sand between pre-person and person.
So right now, viability is about 15 weeks or so. That's right on the line of most of the heartbeat bills. Before that time, the extent of disagreement among reasonable people on the topic of abortion is enough to show that the state has no business legislating morality. After that time, there's no way to reasonably argue that what you're talking about aborting is not a human life.
Abortion disgusts me, but giving the state power it has no right to claim disgusts me even more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"Stolen" is ambiguous and those poll questions are poorly worded. It would be hard to extrapolate or generalize from responses, as a result.
But your post sort of touches upon the bigger issue, which is the extent to which disinformation forms the bedrock of the Trump base's political understanding. Deranged conspiracy theories and a paranoia that approaches levels of psychosis has led certain low-information voters to believe demonstrably false and objectively stupid things.
And we all know what they are. I need not list them here.
It's possible that the structure and mechanics of how we communicate have contributed to this to some degree (though I am not sure how precisely that could be measured). Twitter, for example, seems to be a snake's den of misinformation and collective insanity. And politics seem to be downstream from Twitter. So there may be some kind of link there.
But this phenomena is not unique to the populist/movement right wing, either. The difference is that right wing conspiracy theories react to left wing conspiracy theories. Right wing conspiracy theories oppose the sociopolitical and sociocutlural changes that left wing conspiracy theories drive.
There's no shortage of stupid beliefs on the so called "progressive left," either. And in fact, there are groups that appear somewhat comparable at varying levels of analysis (particularly with respect to race, gender and sexuality). Here, too, deranged conspiracy theories and a paranoia that approaches levels of psychosis has led certain low-information voters to believe demonstrably false and objectively stupid things.
The difference is that whereas Q Anon becomes a subject that the media report on as a "conspiracy theory," the media humor most of the more insane things that the progressive left believe without anything even vaguely resembling an evidentiary basis. Those conspiracy theories include, for example, concepts such as the "wage gap" and "systemic racism."
The wage gap conspiracy theory basically claims that women are systematically discriminated against in "the workplace" (the labor market) because of their gender. As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that have been manipulated into suggesting that women earn about 70 cents or so on the dollar of every man. Further, so called progressives emphasize the "lack of representation" of women among fortune 500 companies, and the like. As if the question of "why are there so few female CEOs of fortune 500 companies?" could be explained by "the patriarchy."
In reality, once you control for individual choices to do things like having children, and the impact that such a choice has on the net life earnings of women, generally; there is no difference. Further, the earning figures in basically every Western country tend to suggest that millennial women out-earn millennial men by at least 20 - 35 percent. And the trend is looking up in that respect, meaning that once you evaluate the relative earning of men and women (even not considering the choice to have children that some women make) women still out-earn men, within certain age groups and will continue to out-pace them for the foreseeable future. This should be unsurprising, given that women have consistently achieved higher levels of educational attainment than men in secondary and post-secondary education for about a decade now.
But somehow the patriarchy is keeping women down? This is stupid.
Conspiracy theories of systemic racism are more pernicious, though. This conspiracy theory basically claims that non-majority groups are discriminated against in "the society" and its levels and iterations based on their race and is so pervasive that it has all but become common knowledge among the media and certain "mainline" groups, like center to progressive left. As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that suggest that non-congruent outcomes among particular (and largely non-representative) samples of non-majority ethnic groups have it worse than equally non-representative samples of majority ethnic groups.
In reality, to the extent that any such differences appear in the data (and they do in certain aspects, like criminal sentencing for example); there is essentially no evidence that could even be misinterpreted to support the proposition that race (or ethnicity) explains these differences, much less causes them. Further, once you broaden the scope of whatever you're looking at (basically no matter what it is that you're focusing on), at least before 2020 things tended to be looking better compared to, for example, criminal sentencing disparities in the 1930s-1970s. This should be unsurprising, given that as a society racism is regarded as intolerable by basically everyone with any sense, and the cultural norms associated with discriminating based on race have shifted.
Further, if you wanted to look at other factors beyond things like criminal sentencing like black economic advancement, and you compared the relative change in the economic status of black Americans after the end of the civil war to, say, about the Johnson administration, it would be pretty clear that things were definitely looking up. Despite widespread cultural and structural barriers (most of which have since been removed), black Americans profoundly improved their position up until that time. But after 30 years of the welfare-state's expansion and progressive social reforms, and---above all---liberal criminal justice reforms supported by people like Joe Biden (e.g., 94 crime bill) the rate of improvement took a turn for the worse. If the "systemic racism" conspiracy theory was true, then the society should have been more racist after Johnson was elected, and the society's collective racism should have profoundly increased thereafter (if we are going to explain that post-Great Society downward trend by "systemic racism"). There are no data that could even be misinterpreted to support that position.
Despite this, the "systemic racism" conspiracy theory is basically understood as axiomatically true. But it sure looks to me like it's a way for woke (and often white) leftists to exploit black people for their own purposes, even though the most significant collective setbacks to black people generally have been visited upon them by people like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, in the 1990s.
I am not saying that there were never systemic issues that disproportionately adversely affected black people, if there was any question. Three strikes laws absolutely did, drug sentencing practices relevant to crack certainly did and so called crime reform at the behest of the 1990s democrats did more damage than anything else. But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic. What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better. Also, sentencing disparities increased after the 94 crime bill. So if the systemic racism theory is true, then democrats bear the responsibility for shaping the current system and its racism for the most part. But if it's not true, then maybe we need to look a bit deeper to understand what is happening rather than repeating stupid things people don't understand on Twitter like AOC.
The bigger question is why do people believe stupid things for which there is no evidence? It seems to me like we have lost the ability to think critically, in favor of reflexive reaction. So like whenever anyone suggests that there is no gender gap, this makes them a sexist. Or whenever anyone suggests that so called systemic racism is more of a political myth used to exploit black people rather than a useful theory through which to understand current social problems, they are automatically a racist.
There are a lot of people that just don't buy that. There are also a lot of people who resent being called a sexist or a racist for having opinions that diverge from whatever woke leftists think is acceptable, but aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to explain why they think the leftist woke approach is acceptable. And when the means by which knowledge is produced is coming up with this garbage, it's the credibility of those institutions behind that process, which is lost.
If the goal was to set up a regime of truth that divided the body politic into warring against itself, then the leftist progressives have done an excellent job. Self-styled experts claim sole and exclusive dominion on not only "what the truth is" but also on "the means by which that which is true can be known." They define what the norm/standard is, and to the extent anyone disagrees they are not only rebuking the current political milieu but the purportedly intellectual foundation upon which that milieu is predicated and the institutions that set up those conditions in the first instance.
Is it any wonder, then, that the low-information right wing have all but totally rejected basically all forms of mainline institutions and retreated into belief in conspiracy theories like Q-anon? When the alternative is to be labeled a white supremacist, racist and sexist bigot? It shouldn't be. Belief in this kind of thing is an act of misguided resistance to a cultural cancer that they intuitively understand is wrong, and to which they will not submit. That's a big part of why Trump was elected, and why someone worse is more likely than not to be the 2024 Republican nominee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
> Jen Psaki,
This woman is repulsive.
> what's wrong with Biden speaking for himself?
The more Biden is in front of a camera, the more he gets in the way of DNC agenda items, says stupid shit off the cuff and otherwise makes a fool of himself. For example, Democrats promised 2k USD checks for "COVID relief" and have been falling over themselves trying to come up with excuses as to why, despite the fact that they control both houses of the legislature and the white house, they are unable to deliver.
The old trusty "republican obstructionism" line didn't work.
They are thus left with the "appease moderate democrats like Joe Manchin" line.
This doesn't even rise to the level of idiocy.
The problem is that Biden put Democrats in this position in the first instance, by promising 2k USD checks upon his confirmation (in reliance on which the people of Georgia gave democrats two additional seats in the senate).
Fact is, however, that democrats do not care about so called "covid relief," and the only reason direct payments to persons (as opposed to companies) were ever on the table was so that it looked slightly less egregious when they handed more billions of dollars to their corporate owners.
The fact that people believe democrats care about them is mind blowing.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I have no rules when it comes to calling people using foul language. I believe the freedom of speech is important to moderating a game. If someone is making attacks on you, they are just ruining their character. However, very rarely will I intervene. I will only intervene where the feud and obscenities becomes so excessive that is derails a game. You will not be modkilled for this, but a hard warn will be in place. I have a high tolerance for those feuds and have no problems with them, but don't make excessive to the point of ruining the game.
That's good because I have a tendency to use gratuitous profanity. Only the most bitch ass motherfuckers dare to fuck with my shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I can now say this without an agenda.Lynching me twice is literally the worst possible path of action. That was so incredibly stupid. You let mafia get two free NKsI'm the godfather that claimed lynchproof? Also fucking stupid.
I disagree. The only way I could use my role and do so in the least anti-town way was to execute the lynchproof, and that was you. This resulted as I anticipated in useful cop results that placed Drafter in DP-4 and alive, resolving any question as to whether he was scum.
Even if WF didn't investigate you (and I assumed he would, which was the correct move) it was going to be you or me lynched given the idiot wagon DP2. Given your role, I knew you had to be scum based on balance. So, better you than me.
What I didn't know was whether you were the Judas. But consider the alternative world. If we don't lynch you twice, we don't push Drafter into DP4 being alive, or even if we do it doesn't end as cleanly as it did -- all scum and possible scum lynched.
If I didn't execute you, there's one other option: execute drafter or don't use the role. If I execute drafter before DP4 and I'm wrong about him being scum, then either Drafter or I am the target and it may well would have been me based on the idiot wagon that formed DP2. Total mistake. But if I don't execute, until you die I am prime lynch target before you (at least according to WF and others on the idiot wagon, like Pie) and based on my role primarily associated with scum affiliation.
I can see the frustration from your perspective: If only Coal had just executed Warren I would have still won!
That's reasonable, but the lower-risk path was executing you, then lynching you, then seeing if Drafeter was still alive. That's why I executed you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elminster
not town read behvaior
So you did place me into the scum piles based on behavior?
Created: