I can’t see a single thing in ‘stop worshipping whiteness’ that means ‘embrace your new black masters’. Sorry.
Your default when asked to consider treating whites as not the top of the pile is to put someone else at the top instead, which potentially says a lot about your thought process that you may wish to examine.
That sounds like the very definition of ‘simple, but not easy.’
While this study was done 17 years ago, I think it’s both clean and extremely likely to yield the same results if it were done again today:
We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.
Think about the cascading impacts of this one rather small study. It’s profound. And this was on paper. What happens when they see your dark skin in person ?
It’s also quite likely that where any smoldering ember of bigotry persists, there’s an additive quality to it. In other words, if you have enough lingering bigotry in the employees of a company then tolerance of bigotry can be a result, leading – for example – to blatantly discriminatory hiring practices that no individual employee of that company would support.
I’ve long ago also come to believe that bigotry is pretty binary: you’re either a bigot or you’re not. I tend to doubt that people who really don’t like blacks are ‘swell and dandy’ with Jews, LGBTQ, Muslims, etc., etc.
They may pick their favorite cause célèbre – sure. But I suspect they’re generally sitting on a pretty deep bench of intolerance.
Which is ridiculously exploitable, and has no end of deleterious societal effects.
So I agree that being generally supportive of BLM really doesn’t equate to prostrating oneself before Our New Black Overlords. It’s nowhere near that simple and not even remotely that dramatic.
But it may imply that, societally, there does have to be some measure of anti-racism in our institutions and in our public policies … in an effort to course correct a bit, and to try to get to that smoldering and persistent element that – like cockroaches – tends to scatter when the lights come on.
Citation needed. I’m not seeing it.
You’ve written a lot of great stuff. I’m not sure how much of it I’ll be able to get into, but I want to focus on this piece, if I may.
I don’t think their contribution to society ends with their Great Idea, even if it creates lots of jobs.
And I strongly suspect that they – as a cohort – pay next to no taxes, like Donald Trump.
I started a thread about this subject that I’d invite you to peruse:
Why is their wealth any of my business ?
Because I strongly suspect that middle class America – as an unwitting part of The Deal To Which Not One Single Solitary American Knowingly Consented – is subsidizing the snot out of the wealthiest, in an effort to get the level of government that, as a nation, we tend to support.
It’s not really quite so much class warfare, IMHO, and clandestine class welfare.
It’s also one of those great ironies about the term ‘redistribution of wealth.’ Both sides do it. The left tends to push it downward, while the right tends to push it upward.
If a citation is provided where a prominent Democrat did openly condemn Gosnell (back to the No True Scotsman Fallacy, are we ?), will you reply that HR Clinton didn’t ?
Or is this Argument of the Beard ?
How many, and which Democrats needed to come out strongly against … WTH we’re talking about … before your test is satisfied ?
It might save time.
You actually have a problem with a sitting President not commenting on an ongoing case because it might influence the outcome?
I doubt that very much-See post #88.
Obama never seemed to have a problem doing that with other cases. Did Obama make a statement AFTER the guilty verdict?
What “other cases”?
Here’s one of Obama’s worst examples where his interference made it harder to get a conviction:
Of course he also interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation:
Now that we have settled that can you show me where Obama condemned Gosnell after the guilty verdict. If not, then why do you think he chose to remain silent?
Not until you expose all the hoops we are required to jump through to satisfy you, otherwise this is just a big waste of time on our part with no end in sight.
Good grief. How on earth are you getting that out of it?
Do you think people should be worshipping your children? Do you think they should be doing so specifically because they are white?
Couldn’t find any huh? Why do you suppose Democrats are so afraid of offending the abortion industry lobbyists?
Back to the topic, if we may? What would it take, specifically, for you to consider getting together with Democrats/Progressives in the spirit of compromise?
First it would be a good to establish that everybody agrees that snipping the spines of babies after they are born is wrong. Once everybody agrees to that then we can use that as a starting point. Until then I’m not sure we can trust that Democrats are serious about compromise or finding common ground.
Maybe you could start a new thread just for that topic. Seems it might be a good place to invoke a poll.
I’m sure you have no end of “starting points” to throw out there, but the question remains: Do you have an actual “ending point”?
That’s a question for both sides to answer isn’t it? Is what Gosnell did the “end point” for the other side?
No, it isn’t.
I asked the question of you, so it is very clearly a question for you to answer.
What is your answer?
This is not a jury trial. But you are free to provide your answer. Do you condemn what Gosnell did? I do.