Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236401)

Just because it's understood to be that way doesn't mean that it is that way. It's a cliche we ignorants in America use to make fun of the situation.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236403)

Everything is in the tone, isn't it? An ironic wink, a nod of the head, and voilà you disarm suspicion. Don't you think sophisticated Europeans can be ironic too? But the mere fact that you have to use irony to make the cliché acceptable means that the cliché IS understood to be racist.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236360)

Good ole masochistic Harry. I noticed the unqualified assertion that you were a liar and then Jeff piling on afterward. He does have a habit of doing that, but I don't know why you care about his opinions. His posts look worthwhile on the surface, but lack meaningful content -- just like his favorite food which, coincidentally, looks like a zero. Your masochism is your own decision.

As to your libertarian argument, you are correct that some libertarians hold those views. Ron Paul would probably be closer to that line of thinking, though I am not. The reason why white nationalists support Ron Paul (disregard the sensationalist headline; I think Cenk was fair) is because he would be in favor of equal laws and equal legal treatment for everyone. The very mention of race, religion, gender or age in law is per se discrimination. So, when liberals say they favor "anti-discrimination" they mean to say that they favor pro-discriminatory legislation that leads to less-discriminatory outcomes. We see this line of reasoning in much of the legislation they propose. A flat tax would treat everyone equally, but equal treatment wouldn't be fair. In other words, they favor social engineering and to some extent I agree with them. I think we all know why.

This rationale made sense in the 1960s and I think, on balance, it was the right call to make. There's a contrarian argument that black outcomes would have been better if we had just left it all alone. That is, forced integration and welfare was the main destroyer of black communities because it disrupted their social infrastructure. It's one possible explanation why other minorities in this country have fared better in comparison. On the whole, I don't find it conclusively persuasive, but I think there's some merit to the argument. I believe Ron Paul thinks along these lines. It makes sense given that he supported the Civil Rights Movement, supported Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but did not support a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236326)

So this is your point...

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236408)

Don't want to be mistaken as speaking for Badhat, god forbid, but I'm of the impression she thinks she is winning these exchanges, so the masochism diagnosis might not sit very well.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236383)

I certainly wouldn't begin by saying, "Some of my best friends are...." For the reason myceelf and I gave. It is a poisoned cliché.

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236387)

I don't recall such a quote from this forum.

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236386)

I generally find it more useful to say that a given thought or deed is racist rather than a person is, but that's because i believe most people are influenced by racism.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236432)

Sure. If Democrats thought that, then they'd lose a huge political weapon. Exhibit A.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236431)

I don't know what you mean. I also don't see why asking for evidence is horrible.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236432)

Sure. If Democrats thought that, then they'd lose a huge political weapon. Exhibit A.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236436)

We need a racism czar who will make clear judgements about what is and what is not racism and assign punishment. She should be a republican.

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 236438)

Well, thanks for providing an example which probably illustrates why we are likely to disagree about how widespread false allegations of racism are. First of all, most people are reporting what he said without a great deal of comment, because, quite frankly, it speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236429)

Just like a 1940s German wouldn't want to be mistaken for speaking on behalf of a Jew, eh? Filthy Jews!

I don't know what it is about your team, but members seem to be unable to distinguish between Harry's sarcasm and genuine questions. Somehow, this leads to accusations of bad faith, e.g., "You're lying."

You're also confusing defense of a person and clearing facts. Yes, there is a branch of libertarianism that wants to treat all people equally under the law, which might end up that they are treated unequally in life due to group power structures. Why do you think stephanie has any authority to speak on behalf of libertarians? You can read my post again if that helps.

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236340)

I found Stephanie's (added: Jeff's too) post to be very explicit. And I am not on any team, especially the libertarian one.
Slow down, I think you will avoid a lot of conflict and confusion, unless of course this is what you seek.

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236445)

Not on a team hoss, and that ain't what Stephanie said, but you can read her post again if it helps.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 236425)

the libertarian argument is that laws will be passed and rights will be recognized only when society has already turned against the discrimination in question.

Yes, although it's worth noting that I didn't claim that libertarians were the only ones who thought that and expressed some agreement with it myself.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236430)

A cliche is not per se false..

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236453)

A cliché, like any other assertion about matters of fact, can be true or false. Clever people, however, avoid clichés---especially a cliché like this one which can be easily misunderstood. "Some of my best friends are......" is (was) a classic opening gambit in the mouth of someone who wants to say that there are, for example, nice, good blacks, Jews (understood to be my friends.... but then there are all the others)

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236455)

Sure there is. If a man says that he isn't racist and you have no proof, suspend judgment and let him go for fuck's sake.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236456)

You asked me how a person charged with racism (suspected of racism) should defend himself. I answered your question: He can't. If you see a flaw in my reasoning, let me know.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236457)

More than happy to. The flaw in your reasoning is that you think unfounded accusations are valid. You think that a potentially innocent person who responds with a cliche is circumstantial evidence of guilt by virtue of the fact that the cliche is a cliche. The flaw in your reasoning is the mob mentality you and most people use to convict innocent (not moral) people, like DSK.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236453)

A cliché, like any other assertion about matters of fact, can be true or false.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236465)

As I have said before, in America this has come to be a meta joke...a joke about a cliche and clever people use it all the time.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236478)

I understand that it is often a joke, or a meta joke. For as long as I can remember it has been a joke, or a meta joke, in Europe as well. The reason it is a joke, or a meta joke, is obvious: Everyone knows that the cliché is racist, so no one with the least respect for public opinion wants to appear to be a racist. But that doesn't mean that those who joke or meta-joke about the cliché are not racists.

As I said, it is impossible to prove or disprove racism by what people say about themselves....unless, of course, they admit that they are racists.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236451)

I read it correctly the first time, guy. She mischaracterized the libertarian position as a singular one, which is just plain incorrect, like most of her factual assertions about libertarians. But if you want to believe in that nonsense, well, at least you've got the numerical majority on your side.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236447)

I never argued with the explicitness of Stephanie's post. I said her characterization of libertarianism was not what I understand libertarianism to be. Then all hell broke loose!

go figure.

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236519)

OK, I went and figured. You misinterpreted the post, and then you figured it out later, and came to an agreement as to the meaning of it.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236521)

Not really, but you go with that. I know it makes you feel like you actually understand stuff.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236319)

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You seem to be saying that libertarians would support non-discrimination laws and that this somehow leads (in some people's minds) to thinking that discrimination is wrong.
I would say that in a perfect libertarian schema anti discrimination laws would be unneccessary. The government would never be allowed to make laws that discriminated and people otherwise could discriminate to their heart's content.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236326)

So this is your point...

the libertarian argument is that laws will be passed and rights will be recognized only when society has already turned against the discrimination in question.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 236425)

Yes, it's obviously related to an argument that laws are unnecessary. The argument (again) is that society will only pass anti-discrimination laws, will only see anti-sodomy laws as violative of rights, when society is far along in changing so as to make the change in law merely an expression of what is going to be the mainstream acceptance of the way things should be. In other words, when such laws are really necessary, they can't be passed. When they can be passed, they aren't as necessary.

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236429)

Just like a 1940s German wouldn't want to be mistaken for speaking on behalf of a Jew, eh? Filthy Jews!

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236525)

Your condescension is unwarranted IMO, as you are clearly unable to own the fact that you were originally in error:
(we all make mistakes)




Can't say you didn't post this stuff, whether I understand it or not!

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236532)

Nothing and I mean nothing about your posting a bunch of quotes does anything to prove anything.

If you feel like it, explain my error in simple, starightforward language and then we'll discuss it.

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236533)

So you are snowed by even your own words. Do you deny posting them?

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236385)

As long as you say, "subordinated beneath a single government" I have no objection to calling the US an empire. Multi-ethnic? Not really. Anglo-Saxon culture absorbed all the other ethnic groups--the melting pot. To non-Americans this is perhaps more obvious than it is to you.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236534)

no.

I'll ask again. What was my error?

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236539)

You, Badhat, had it backwards, SEE?:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236459)

Where did I say that unfounded accusations are valid? I said that accusations of racism cannot be proved (or verified) because they refer to thoughts, beliefs and attitudes (of the person being accused). Obviously, if they cannot be proved, they are not valid.

And where did I say that a person who responds with the cliché is guilty "by circumstantial evidence?" I said exactly the opposite: that the person using the cliché may be telling the truth or may not be telling the truth, but that in any case the cliché has a poisoned history.

The person who uses the cliché is not "guilty" of anything, except perhaps insensitivity to usage or stupidity.

Originally Posted by handle (Post 236516)

If the problem you had was the characterization of ideological positions as singular, then you should have said that in the first place.

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236541)

This is what stephanie said: The argument of those more libertarian-inclined (among others, including me) is that when we start doing this, as well as when we start recognizing distinctions as ones deserving of heightened scrutiny by the courts,[it] is not long before when we start recognizing as a society that such discrimination is wrong.

This is what I said: You seem to be saying that libertarians would support non-discrimination laws and that this somehow leads (in some people's minds) to thinking that discrimination is wrong.