Is that some kind of metaphor for some act of child prostitution?
Since someone resurrected this thread. I don’t have Don 123 on my ignore list (I only have one person on my ignore list), he was just too amusing. I’m thinking of giving my kid a wagon to go around selling mangoes to cops so he can later get really rich selling screen doors in Gary Indian by pitting a black saleman against a white salesman.
But now that I look back at my post, I was impermissibly calling him a troll or accusing him of making stuff up. I apologize, there was no malice, I was just squeezing my bellybutton so hard I forgot my manners.
Since he’s apparently banned, having him on your ignore list would be rather pointless.
Until those in the first group are able to express their opinions in public without fear of economic and social sanctions, the liberal call for a dialogue on race is dishonest and hypocritical. I would love for their to be a real dialogue on race, but I would want Charles Murray to be part of the panel.
Please don’t tell me you’re one of those idiots who thinks that straight white males are the most oppressed people in America.
I realize that the “those idiots” refers to an outside group of people, but associating them with a poster, even as a hypothetical or in a rhetorical device is too close to name-calling.
Dial it back.
[ /Moderating ]
I did not say that, and I do not believe it. I was complaining about the hypocrisy of those who call for a dialogue on race after effectively suppressing such a dialogue. They do not want a dialogue; they want a monologue, with them doing all the talking. They expect us to listen mutely and sheepishly like children being scolded for having done something they knew was bad.
If there is to be “a frank discussion on race” one must be able to talk about black social pathology without claiming that whites are somehow responsible.
Dude, lots of people rant about the “pathologies” that supposedly afflict black people. You remember that guy named Ronald Reagan who got elected President after ranting about “welfare queens”.
I assume you’ve also heard of The New Republic, The National Review, and The Weekly Standard.
Yes, and I read those magazines from time to time.
Those pathologies do not “supposedly” effect black people. They really do. If there is to be “a frank discussion on race,” one must be able to discuss facts about high rates of black crime and illegitimacy, and inferior black intellectual performance, without blaming whites for these. Otherwise the call for “a dialogue on race” will resemble the Hundred Flowers Campaign in Communist China in 1957. Chinese were encouraged to criticize the government. When they did, they were punished.
So you think Reagan getting elected President twice(once in the biggest political landslide in US history) was an example of being “punished”?
Sounds like a devilishly handsome and brutally intelligent guy.
I wonder who he might be?
I voted against Ronald Reagan twice, and think he had an enduring bad effect on American politics. Nevertheless, the fact that he was elected, and reelected certainly does indicate that most whites think most blacks are a problem.
Unfortunately, there are effective sanctions against saying so explicitly. For example, when James D. Watson, who co-discovered DNA in 1953 and shared a Nobel Prize for that discovery in 1962 said that he was, “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so,”
he was forced to step down as Administrator of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
If something like this can happen to a man like James D. Watson, I am confident that it happens to people with fewer achievements. I cannot document this, but I am fairly confident that being known to agree with The Bell Curve will keep one from getting a teaching position at many colleges and universities.
As long as this continues there cannot be “a frank discussion on race.”
I just wanted to distinguish the phrase “ignore him” from “put him on ignore” Perhaps its a distinction that only exists in my head but I reserve the ignore list for special situations.
It is not enough to be wrong or stupid or bigoted or say things that I strongly disagree with. You have to start bringing out the worst in people before I think you are better off not being heard from.
So you’re telling us that you’re going to shut it up on the subject? That’s great, I dont think you needed to post fifty-something times to tell us though, once would have sufficed.
FinnAgain and Damuri Ajashi, please drop the ignore list discussion. It’s irrelevant to this thread.
Umm, and if some part of the blame for high rates of black crime and illegitimacy, and inferior black intellectual performance are in fact the fault of Whites we just what, ignore it, in this “frank discussion on race”? :dubious:
CMC fnord!
'Cause, for instance, I seem to recall “The Destruction of the Black Family” being laid squarely at the feet of “The Welfare State” once upon a time. But what I don’t seem to recall is White folks not being overwhelmingly in charge of making up the eligibility rules (which IIRC led directly to an increase in “illegitimacy” and one parent families).
Those who choose to blame black social pathology on whites should be part of the dialogue on race, but they should be expected to debate their opinions rationally and civilly. They should no longer be able to shout “Racist!” at those they disagree with in order to end the dialogue.
If there is to be “a frank discussion on race,” it will need to be more dignified than this debate. J. Philippe Rushton’s opponent in this debate demanded that Rushton be fired. For there to be a dialogue on race there must be no sanctions whatsoever against what Professor Rushton argues.
I don’t see it this way at all (and it is a viewpoint I happen to agree with)
America has so dissolved into it’s only little cliques and sects that they forget to be AMERICANS first. You can hold your heritage up high, after assuming the mantle of being an American. It isn’t like that now, people would more readily self identify as an African American or an Irish American that an American.
This is a problem when all these people are only out for their self interests (as a race) instead of the greater good of ALL Americans.
What is wrong with calling someone who is a racist a “racist”?
Are we not allowed to call Nazis “anti-Semites”