What's new
By:

Racism and privilege

heyhey said:
So i said the same thing 4 times in that one post.

No need to dodge any longer.

Either you are wrong now and an individuals race is relevant or you were wrong before and it isn't.
Click to expand...

While it looks to me like OB still doesn't see this point, and I remember that Ain'tnothing made the same point oh a lot of times long ago, maybe it would help if I made it all over again????

OB's problem here, like almost all "liberals" who can't accept people as they are and are themselves carriers of all the problems they try to "fix" in others, is the logical construct of their views:

"racism" is not something that actually exists outside of the logic, rhetoric, and nest of "correlations" in the imagination of those who "believe in it". In an attempt to illustrate my point, let's say I think there is a human problem with "hatred" or even "arrogance", or say even "selfishness". Once I attempt to make these "evil" and "despicable" human failings that can't be tolerated or dealt with on a personal relationship sort of manner as I interact with others in my daily life. . . . and start saying that they are crimes the government should enact laws to eradicate, or start some kind of public policy initiative, say with some line of propaganda or another, and start spreading judgments against other people across the internet, I think I would be in an important sense making it all worse by setting up a logical construct that divides people and imposes a form of unjust tyranny upon all who do not conform to my construct.

I think if OB or other well-intentioned self-appointed managers of other's affairs, in actions or in speech or in cognition could see this aspect of the actual results of their arguments, things would actually be better for everyone.

Why should OB's views have any superior value over anyone else's??? Does he press his argument without himself indulging in hatred for others dissimilar from himself??? Probably no human being ever really does that. We will always have some tendency in our congnition and emotions to favor our own selves. I don't think that's a crime, it's a personal problem perhaps, and until we do actual harm against the inate rights of others---which governments are usually all about---we can tolerate the liberty of others, or try to tolerate the liberty others if we care to, and cut our own paths through our dealings with others as we best can.

The "Civil Rights" movement in the sixties made use of an enduring human problem to effect some laws and change some social patterns, but it did not end human hatred, arrogance, or the use some people make of government power to effect restrictions on others in various ways. It was not truely a "Civil Rights" movement, but a "Government Power" movement.

A true "Civil Rights" movement would reduce government power, and increase human liberty.

The thing that was "revolutionary" in the American experiment in trying to establish a limited government was the establishment of common human rights under a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". That "people" term was meant to edge out special interests, elite manipulators, demagogues, tyrants, and any other scheme for abusing government power by one person or group to the detriment of others. The problem with it from the outset was it did not go far enough in securing human rights against those who would use government to control others, and still did too little to protect human rights.
 
Last edited:
babe said:
While it looks to me like OB still doesn't see this point, and I remember that Ain'tnothing made the same point oh a lot of times long ago, maybe it would help if I made it all over again????

OB's problem here, like almost all "liberals" who can't accept people as they are and are themselves carriers of all the problems they try to "fix" in others, is the logical construct of their views:

"racism" is not something that actually exists outside of the logic, rhetoric, and nest of "correlations" in the imagination of those who "believe in it". In an attempt to illustrate my point, let's say I think there is a human problem with "hatred" or even "arrogance", or say even "selfishness". Once I attempt to make these "evil" and "despicable" human failings that can't be tolerated or dealt with on a personal relationship sort of manner as I interact with others in my daily life. . . . and start saying that they are crimes the government should enact laws to eradicate, or start some kind of public policy initiative, say with some line of propaganda or another, and start spreading judgments against other people across the internet, I think I would be in an important sense making it all worse by setting up a logical construct that divides people and imposes a form of unjust tyranny upon all who do not conform to my construct.

I think if OB or other well-intentioned self-appointed managers of other's affairs, in actions or in speech or in cognition could see this aspect of the actual results of their arguments, things would actually be better for everyone.

Why should OB's views have any superior value over anyone else's??? Does he press his argument without himself indulging in hatred for others dissimilar from himself??? Probably no human being ever really does that. We will always have some tendency in our congnition and emotions to favor our own selves. I don't think that's a crime, it's a personal problem perhaps, and until we do actual harm against the inate rights of others---which governments are usually all about---we can tolerate the liberty of others, or try to tolerate the liberty others if we care to, and cut our own paths through our dealings with others as we best can.

The "Civil Rights" movement in the sixties made use of an enduring human problem to effect some laws and change some social patterns, but it did not end human hatred, arrogance, or the use some people make of government power to effect restrictions on others in various ways. It was not truely a "Civil Rights" movement, but a "Government Power" movement.

A true "Civil Rights" movement would reduce government power, and increase human liberty.

The thing that was "revolutionary" in the American experiment in trying to establish a limited government was the establishment of common human rights under a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". That "people" term was meant to edge out special interests, elite manipulators, demagogues, tyrants, and any other scheme for abusing government power by one person or group to the detriment of others. The problem with it from the outset was it did not go far enough in securing human rights against those who would use government to control others, and still did too little to protect human rights.
Click to expand...

Stopped reading when you brought up the civil rights movement. White people aren't supposed to talk about it.
 
Stoked said:
You would know all about dodging questions now wouldn't you.
Click to expand...

I know better than to confuse dodging (pretending to answer a question, but not doing so) and ignoring a question with a straight-forward refusal to answer. I know which of those I've offered, and which ones you have offered in the past.
 
heyhey said:
If you are going to use my race to interpret my posts than why is it unreasonable for me to ask what your race is?
Click to expand...

Again, only for the purpose of pointing out that you don't have the background to be telling others what being like King means, even to the limited degree that having the same skin color would have given you a better perspective. You could have responded that you are a historian who studied the civil rights era, or that you have read a few comprehensive biographies, or any other number of things that would have granted you some level of expertise. Instead, you turned to whining.

Let's go back to the original quote:
MLK jr. Was great not because his message was "The white man is keeping you down" He was great because his message was " It doesn't have to be this way. You can stand up to the white man."
Click to expand...

His message had both elements. Also, in addition to your notion, King certainly felt that white people had to take responsibility for no longer holding people down. If you think that message was absent, you are woefully under-informed. In fact, your paragraph is probably a better description of X's position than King's, as for most of his public career, X accepted little or no help from white men, while King was much more accepting. Do you consider X to be a great man?

Now, confronted by the huge level of ignorance your post displayed, I pointed out that you don't really have the background to get King. Your race is a factor in that. I'm sorry if you find that uncomfortable, but it's nonetheless true.

It's not a unreasonable for to ask if I'm white, and it's not unreasonable for me to set a condition before I answer. Feel free to ask as often as you think is reasonable.
 
Stoked said:
Dude give it up, he will not answer. He will come up with some word play and try to confuse the issue. It's the One Brow way.
Click to expand...

I'm quite serious. If you come up with a position of mine that will be more or less true, or accurate, based on my race, I'll tell it what my race.
 
dalamon said:
Again, I reiterate: dude is definitely white. Can you think of any non-white dude with the name Eric? I mean really.
Click to expand...

I was in school with another boy named Eric. One of us is white, and one of us is black. I dated his sister for a while.
 
babe said:
Does he press his argument without himself indulging in hatred for others dissimilar from himself??? Probably no human being ever really does that. We will always have some tendency in our congnition and emotions to favor our own selves. I don't think that's a crime, it's a personal problem perhaps, and until we do actual harm against the inate rights of others...The "Civil Rights" movement in the sixties made use of an enduring human problem to effect some laws and change some social patterns, but it did not end human hatred, arrogance, or the use some people make of government power to effect restrictions on others in various ways.
Click to expand...

This is the only part of your post that I find any accuracy in. The rest was, as best, distorted.
 
One Brow said:
I was in school with another boy named Eric. One of us is white, and one of us is black. I dated his sister for a while.
Click to expand...

So you dated black Eric's sister? Looks like One Brow was a swinger since the public school era. Good on ya, 'Rico.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top