Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3508)

AemJeff 07-21-2009 02:54 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 121074)
I would add that when someone hollers that it's the "culture" that causes black America to lag behind in so many areas (education, crime, broken homes etc.), and insinuates that therefore it's just time for them to fix their culture, be better, pull themselves up by their bootstraps etc., it's an overly simplistic and not-very-useful approach to the problems. Like it or not, our government, our laws, our prejudices did (and continues to) bear a large influence on the creation of this struggling "culture" and some of us feel like we should play a role in trying to fix it.

Exactly. That "culture" is a product of the situation created by the larger society. This is yet another way of force-feeding somebody shit sandwiches and then sneering that they're a "shit-eater."

JoeK 07-21-2009 03:15 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 121076)
Exactly. That "culture" is a product of the situation created by the larger society. This is yet another way of force-feeding somebody shit sandwiches and then sneering that they're a "shit-eater."

It is not at all clear how this or that culture came to be and is even less clear what should be done to "fix" a culture. Actually, by now it should be obvious liberal policies are not what should be done. The conservative answer is to let the rough and tumble of cultural evolution work its magic. For example, in the case of the black kids misbehaving at the public swimming pool, allow grown-ups, even (the horror, the horror!) white grown-ups pass judgment on the black child's culture. Of course, there is no guarantee...

AemJeff 07-21-2009 03:23 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeK (Post 121078)
It is not at all clear how this or that culture came to be and is even less clear what should be done to "fix" a culture. Actually, by now it should be obvious liberal policies are not what should be done. The conservative answer is to let the rough and tumble of cultural evolution work its magic. For example, in the case of the black kids misbehaving at the public swimming pool, allow grown-ups, even (the horror, the horror!) white grown-ups pass judgment on the black child's culture. Of course, there is no guarantee...

I'll stipulate to some of that. Certainly I agree that it's not clear what we ought to be doing about it. My general point is that we at least need to acknowledge it, and accept responsibility for it. Whether or not we can clearly, empirically establish a causal link between our historical treatment of blacks and the current state of "black culture," the historical treatment is so plainly awful, how can we do anything but accept that responsibility?

bjkeefe 07-21-2009 04:15 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121061)
Jeff,

our laws are not about your ancestors - they are about people living now - we all have responsibility for our actions regardless of of what happened to our ancestors - or even what happened to us as children.

Don't you think its patronizing to say that we have one set of standards for this race, and another for that race? nevermind that race itself is a fuzzy concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeK (Post 121078)
It is not at all clear how this or that culture came to be and is even less clear what should be done to "fix" a culture. Actually, by now it should be obvious liberal policies are not what should be done. The conservative answer is to let the rough and tumble of cultural evolution work its magic. [...]


As far as "people living now" goes, and "patronizing," for that matter, and of course conservatives' magical thinking, I wonder how Henry Louis Gates might respond to the above. Unfavorably, I'd wager.

JonIrenicus 07-21-2009 04:51 PM

Re: Putting Every Child on a Path to College
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 121066)
I want to disagree, first, with Obama's statement that as a society we want to put every child on a path to a college education; and, second, with McWhorter's suggestion that the problem with the schools in black communities cannot be fixed from without but only from within.

What we really want is a society that educates every child in a way that will enable him to become a productive and happy member of society whether or not this involves a college education. It might mean a very good vocational education in some of the manual trades. Nothing wrong with that. The notion that life is a "race" to distinction -- something else Obama mentioned -- and that every kid is just as talented as the President is meretricious nonsense and a disservice to most ordinary citizens, white and black alike. Realism is the first desideratum for moral responsibility in this world.
...


Completely agree with this first part. Half the population has above average intellect of the sort that aligns well with higher education, and the other half is below average.

The idea that the correct path for all children is college is actually harmful to many kids who are just not college material and would be much better served going to learn some trade business or even vocational school.

I know a guy who works as a contractor, has his own business, is NOT particularly analytically bright but does VERY well. He would not have been served by going to a 4 year university and learning liberal arts and getting a degree, it would have been much harder for him to do so in the first place, and the types of fields he would have been eligible for with a degree are just not as natural given his abilities.

This notion that all kids are equally bright, or if not that, have equal chances and benefits from college is wrong.

The problem of course is that so many employers use college as a litmus test, so that even if it is not the best place for many people, they have to go there anyway to be competitive in so many fields.


I think a potential solution is a sort of compromise, lessening to push for 4 year institutions for many and promoting trade schools as a viable alternative.

Then companies would still have a litmus test of sorts while the educational structure is more beneficial to those who are not so gifted academically and are asked to force their square into the college circle.

popcorn_karate 07-21-2009 05:38 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
i'll ignore the invitation to a pissing match.

but i was thinking about Gates when i listen to this DV earlier. It was clearly a situation that was instigated and exacerbated by racism, and i really feel for Mr. Gates. The situation also highlights why the NAACP website for reporting police abuse is important, and as john pointed out, police abuse is often reported as the worst instance of racism afflicting the black community.


but what is your point, exactly? that racism exists? yes it does and i certainly don't deny it.

this is the lead-up to what you quoted above:

freshpez:
....And I think, boy, if Sotomoyer was a white guy and said those things ....

Aemjeff:
....When you "reverse the circumstances" regarding blacks do you imagine your ancestors were enslaved for a 400 year period....

ME: if a statement is racist coming from a white mouth, isn't it racist coming from a black, hispanic, asian etc. mouth? (and patronizing not to see that we are all free actors with equal responsibility regardless of race)

you and jeff and others here all tend to conflate societal level discourse about whether racism exists(yes!), whether affirmative action is good or bad (mostly good, should be class based) etc. with personal actions and statements made by individuals - individuals have to take responsibility for their actions and there can be no free passes because of whatever happened to your ancestors - thats just basic decency and justice. Sotomayor's statement was objectively racist. it matters absolutely zero what the history is. either its racist or not. just like a woman that says "men are pigs" is saying something sexist, even though the history of sexism is vastly disproportionate on the side of men being the sexists.

AemJeff 07-21-2009 05:50 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121090)
... Sotomayor's statement was objectively racist. it matters absolutely zero what the history is. either its racist or not. just like a woman that says "men are pigs" is saying something sexist, even though the history of sexism is vastly disproportionate on the side of men being the sexists.

PK, if you please, square your assertion above with my argument here, and Sotomayor's words, here.

osmium 07-21-2009 06:11 PM

Dayo did a bad job here
 
In this clip where Dayo posits that Sotomayor 'gets it' because she has had much more experience being a Latina than others have, I think she is completely off base, and John, who is wiser (and has more experience debating) seems to try to walk her back off it.

Dayo, you say she has experience not just in the wood-paneled boardrooms, but: I think you will find there are fewer people actually from the wood-paneled boardrooms than you think there are. I think it's astonishingly badly put when you say she has experience in the Bronx and in white-people land. Additionally, this seems to imply that no white people ever work or travel in (this makes me cringe) "black-people land." But that is patently untrue.

The Sotomayor hearings are neither here nor there. Of course I think the Sentors sounded like idiots.

The thing you said that is actually offensive, Dayo, is about halfway through the clip, when you give props to other people who would 'get it' and then say that yeah "they're New Yorkers." I am sitting here in New York, and would like to let you know: that will get no one anywhere, and if that's truly your first reaction, then you should try to broaden your experience a little bit.

There is no green-people land everyone. Osmium is here to tell you: There is only America, or, if you prefer, the world.

uncle ebeneezer 07-21-2009 06:11 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Well said Jeff. I agree completely. It's not to say that people don't bear responsibility for their choices at all, but I think it silly when people argue that black America has all the same opportunities as white America or that the government should simply do nothing. Trying to figure out what CAN be done and what will work, both involves looking at the bigger picture, and historical considerations are a big part of getting the most accurate view of a complex problem. What gets under my skin when people point to the over-representation of blacks in prison and point to that to say "you see, they just don't want to follow the rules" without acknowledging that the ghetto is very much a creation of our government policies, and that through policy we may be able to improve the disparity. In short I think the fact that the people we repressed most harshly over the years, are also the same people who fill the most prison cells is more than just a coincidence. How we fix it is a whole other can of worms, of course.

stephanie 07-21-2009 06:21 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Jumping in--

Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121090)
this is the lead-up to what you quoted above:

freshpez:
....And I think, boy, if Sotomoyer was a white guy and said those things ....

Aemjeff:
....When you "reverse the circumstances" regarding blacks do you imagine your ancestors were enslaved for a 400 year period....

ME: if a statement is racist coming from a white mouth, isn't it racist coming from a black, hispanic, asian etc. mouth? (and patronizing not to see that we are all free actors with equal responsibility regardless of race)

you and jeff and others here all tend to conflate societal level discourse about whether racism exists(yes!), whether affirmative action is good or bad (mostly good, should be class based) etc. with personal actions and statements made by individuals - individuals have to take responsibility for their actions and there can be no free passes because of whatever happened to your ancestors - thats just basic decency and justice. Sotomayor's statement was objectively racist. it matters absolutely zero what the history is. either its racist or not. just like a woman that says "men are pigs" is saying something sexist, even though the history of sexism is vastly disproportionate on the side of men being the sexists.

I don't know about others here, but I don't see Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment as racist or sexist. Mainly, for me, that's because given the context it's reasonably clear what she was saying, and it wasn't that Latinas are inherently better judges (or that wise Latinas are inherently better judges than wise white guys).

I tend to see the whole thing about AA as an unfortunate digression that is injected in the conversation whenever Sotomayor is brought up, it appears mainly by the anti-Sotomayor side. However, I think some of the same arguments often given for supporting AA (which I too would prefer to put on a class basis, but mainly I just don't see it as a big issue) are being brought out to try and explain why the "just reverse the situations" doesn't really work for figuring out whether a statement is racist. I'm feeling frustrated with the conversation on this basis, for what it's worth, because I *don't* think it's really the issue about the statement being discussed. (I also think the statement is being analyzed way beyond it's actual importance, and that there's something weird underlying that, as Dayo seemed to be trying to bring out.)

That aside, it's simply not the case that a comment will or should be taken the same way if you just change "Latino" or "black" to white. That is, yes, due to the historical context and, more so, the current cultural context, but not simply due to the fact that blacks have generally been the ones discriminated against and worse (i.e., I'm not saying that only the privileged race can be racist or sexist). It's somewhat related to the fact that it's fine and dandy to be proud to be a particular ethnicity, but weird (and generally racist) to be proud to be white. Not because whites are disadvantaged (please) but because there is no common white culture in any sense, not a sense defined by its whiteness. Going on about being white is thus read as (and IMO is) racist, in a way that one going on about being proud to be Italian or Mexican or something really isn't (and in a way that saying that one's experience as a Latino or African-American or Jew or Southerner or poor person or even as a WASP gives one a certain perspective really wouldn't be either).

AemJeff 07-21-2009 06:27 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 121095)
Jumping in--



I don't know about others here, but I don't see Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment as racist or sexist. Mainly, for me, that's because given the context it's reasonably clear what she was saying, and it wasn't that Latinas are inherently better judges (or that wise Latinas are inherently better judges that wise white guys).

I tend to see the whole thing about AA as an unfortunate digression that is injected in the conversation whenever Sotomayor is brought up, it appears mainly by the anti-Sotomayor side. However, I think some of the same arguments often given for supporting AA (which I too would prefer to put on a class basis, but mainly I just don't see it as a big issue) are being brought out to try and explain why the "just reverse the situations" doesn't really work for figuring out whether a statement is racist. I'm feeling frustrated with the conversation on this basis, for what it's worth, because I *don't* think it's really the issue about the statement being discussed. (I also think the statement is being analyzed way beyond it's actual importance, and that there's something weird underlying that, as Dayo seemed to be trying to bring out.)

That aside, it's simply not the case that a comment will or should be taken the same way if you just change "Latino" or "black" to white. That is, yes, due to the historical context and, more so, the current cultural context, but not simply due to the fact that blacks have generally been the ones discriminated against and worse (i.e., I'm not saying that only the privileged race can be racist or sexist). It's somewhat related to the fact that it's fine and dandy to be proud to be a particular ethnicity, but weird (and generally racist) to be proud to be white. Not because whites are disadvantaged (please) but because there is no common white culture in any sense, not a sense defined by its whiteness. When one goes on about whiteness, it simply is generally intended as a racist statement, in a way that one going on about being proud to be Italian or Mexican or something really isn't (and in a way that saying that one's experience as a Latino or African-American or Jew or Southerner or poor person or even as a WASP gives one a certain perspective really wouldn't be either).

Nice point. "Proud to be Irish" or "Polish and proud," (e.g.) do not scan the way "Proud to be white" does. "White" just doesn't occupy the same linguistic niche.

popcorn_karate 07-21-2009 06:45 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
she first, explicitly rejects the idea of equality between the sexes by rejecting Justice O'Connor's quote about a wise old man and a wise old woman coming to the same conclusions.

she then broadens it to say specifically that a Latina woman would make BETTER decisions than a white a man.

it is so explicit that i have a hard time understanding how you can see it otherwise. does it mean she is a racist? no. like you said its one line in a long speech. Is the right using this as a blunt instrument of attack? yes. Is it really the issue for the right? no. they just don't want any damn liberal, and particularly they are probably threatened by her. we agree on all this stuff.

but for me, the ideological battle is not enough incentive to make me say that the emperor does indeed have magnificent robes, when the emperor's nuts are blowing in the breeze.

popcorn_karate 07-21-2009 07:02 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 121095)
it's reasonably clear what she was saying, and it wasn't that Latinas are inherently better judges (or that wise Latinas are inherently better judges than wise white guys).

"...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnít lived that life.Ē

funny that she says exactly what you say she doesn't say. having a little cognitive dissonance?


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 121095)
(I also think the statement is being analyzed way beyond it's actual importance, and that there's something weird underlying that, as Dayo seemed to be trying to bring out.)

I agree with that. which is why my attitude is "yes it was one racist statement - balance that against an entire career of relevant, and impressive experience and it becomes obvious that it is not too important."

i just refuse to be so intellectually dishonest or partisan as to not see the flaws of people on "my side".

stephanie 07-21-2009 07:31 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121098)
"...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnít lived that life.Ē

funny that she says exactly what you say she doesn't say. having a little cognitive dissonance?

No, because you are ignoring the part following, which Jeff quoted just a few posts ago. Statements have to be read in context.

Quote:

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
The speech as a whole simply doesn't, in my honest opinion, support the interpretation you seem to be arguing for -- Latinas are better by innate nature to be judges than other people. She's, instead, arguing that background makes a difference and that having a court that reflects diversity will lead to better decisions than one that does not. You can debate that claim, but it's not the same as claiming that one is better innately based on one's race, and thus it is not the same as someone declaring that "judges should be white men, because they tend to make better decisions."

I think her statement is badly phrased, yes (and yes she repeated it bunches of times), but I am not remotely worried (and have a hard time believing that anyone is) that she really thinks that Latinas are better at judging than those of other sexes and ethnicities. But if someone said "it's important to have a white male judge" it would be interpreted differently, both because the context would be different (there is no reasonable context that would make some other sense of that statement) and because of the history -- such statements have been made and they have had a particular meaning.

To say context makes no difference, history makes no difference in determining the interpretation of a statement simply makes no sense to me.

claymisher 07-21-2009 07:58 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121097)
she first, explicitly rejects the idea of equality between the sexes by rejecting Justice O'Connor's quote about a wise old man and a wise old woman coming to the same conclusions.

she then broadens it to say specifically that a Latina woman would make BETTER decisions than a white a man.

it is so explicit that i have a hard time understanding how you can see it otherwise. does it mean she is a racist? no. like you said its one line in a long speech. Is the right using this as a blunt instrument of attack? yes. Is it really the issue for the right? no. they just don't want any damn liberal, and particularly they are probably threatened by her. we agree on all this stuff.

but for me, the ideological battle is not enough incentive to make me say that the emperor does indeed have magnificent robes, when the emperor's nuts are blowing in the breeze.

PK, you've agree with us on all the main points but are still coming to the conclusion that she's somehow a bigot/racist/something. This is no big deal! Give it up!

as for "...a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnít lived that life.Ē well, outsiders have an edge. Left-handed people have to live in a right-handed world. They know more about what it's like to be right-handed than righties know about what it's like to be lefties. Not everything, but they still know more. This doesn't make lefties superior or whatever. It's just a fact of being an outsider.

JoeK 07-21-2009 08:13 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121082)
As far as "people living now" goes, and "patronizing," for that matter, and of course conservatives' magical thinking, I wonder how Henry Louis Gates might respond to the above. Unfavorably, I'd wager.

Oh, yeah? Then what do you say about what happened to Ron Paul, when that Austrian degenerate sexually assaulted him?
Man, Iíll tell ya, the stuff a white gentleman has to go through these days.

AemJeff 07-21-2009 08:47 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121097)
she first, explicitly rejects the idea of equality between the sexes by rejecting Justice O'Connor's quote about a wise old man and a wise old woman coming to the same conclusions.

she then broadens it to say specifically that a Latina woman would make BETTER decisions than a white a man.

it is so explicit that i have a hard time understanding how you can see it otherwise. does it mean she is a racist? no. like you said its one line in a long speech. Is the right using this as a blunt instrument of attack? yes. Is it really the issue for the right? no. they just don't want any damn liberal, and particularly they are probably threatened by her. we agree on all this stuff.

but for me, the ideological battle is not enough incentive to make me say that the emperor does indeed have magnificent robes, when the emperor's nuts are blowing in the breeze.

stephanie's already said it. I don't see how you come to that conclusion without ignoring all of the surrounding text in her speech. She explicitly did not say what you're attributing to her.

johnmarzan 07-21-2009 09:30 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
dayo is the female jesse jackson. lol.

brucds 07-21-2009 09:46 PM

Re: swimming pools
 
These drowning statistics - I forgot which one of the village racists posted them - tell ME we shouldn't let men into swimming pools...

badhatharry 07-22-2009 12:09 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toryentalist (Post 121044)
When I grow up I want to be a wise latina.

Ha! This wins the prize for the numero uno comentario.

badhatharry 07-22-2009 12:13 AM

Re: Putting Every Child on a Path to College
 
Besides, who's going to make things and fix our cars?

Trade schools rock, too, Mr Prez!

claymisher 07-22-2009 01:55 AM

Re: swimming pools
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brucds (Post 121114)
These drowning statistics - I forgot which one of the village racists posted them - tell ME we shouldn't let men into swimming pools...

Heheh. I can't believe I overlooked that aspect of it.

claymisher 07-22-2009 01:58 AM

Re: Putting Every Child on a Path to College
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 121126)
Besides, who's going to make things and fix our cars?

Trade schools rock, too, Mr Prez!

So if Obama came out for boosting trade schools and community colleges, you'd applaud that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Inves...on-Initiative/

breadcrust 07-22-2009 06:53 AM

Re: swimming pools
 
Quote:

So what's the lesson here? That lifeguards should know that black swimmers are more likely to drown in unsupervised hotel pools so therefore they should pay extra attention to them in supervised municipal pools?
No, if you look at the list more carefully (you didn't because you're only looking for a way to score points, not learn) you'll see that the incidence of black drownings is much higher in almost every category, not just hotel/motel. Notice the numbers in "public pool (camp, church, city)." These are the ostensibly supervised municipal pools. The numbers are stark.

But because I figured you just weren't telling anywhere near the whole story (what with the fact that you're implying the NIH nerds are bigots) I checked for lifeguard scanning patterns. Noting that your alleged method was recommended by Red Cross, I also found through wikipedia the group NASCO, who have this statement in their online text for why black males may drown so much more frequently than others:

Quote:

While a higher bone density doesn't necessarily indicate how well or poorly a person might swim,
bone density does have an effect on a swimmer's buoyancy. That in turn would affect how long a
drowning victim stays on the surface before sinking to the bottom of the pool and how hard it will be to
bring the victim to the surface during the rescue. This means that a black male with a well-developed body
may sink faster and be more difficult to bring to the surface than someone with a different ethnic
background.
Well, you know that there are obvious average physical differences between those of different races, but I'm sure you'll just say that NASCO is a collection of racists on par with me and the NIH.

And none of this amounts to me advocating blocking pool access to anyone for racial reasons, but paying a little better attention to classes of people associated with a high incidence of drowning... to lessen the risk of drowning as the NIH paper recommends. As for this diavlog: who knows what the hell was going on at the world's most racist pool? All you liberals just assume racism, but you think the same thing about the NIH, so who cares?

bjkeefe 07-22-2009 08:02 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121090)
i'll ignore the invitation to a pissing match.

Funny how when someone disagrees with you it's an "invitation to a pissing match." Of course all of the times you register disagreement, you're being well-reasoned and insightful, right?

Quote:

but what is your point, exactly? that racism exists? yes it does and i certainly don't deny it.
Nice to hear you say so, but I really don't think you have any awareness of the extent of the problem or what the word even means. I'm sorry, but calling Sotomayor's statement "racist" is either the sort of whining you hear from the sort of self-pitying white guys who think Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are right, or it's meaning-stretching-into-meaninglessness of the Jonah Goldberg/"liberal fascism" level.

Further, your attempt to blur Jeff's views with mine with those of "others" tells me that you're just blindly lashing out against ... who knows. Let's just call it a stereotype of some imagined group's behavior.

badhatharry 07-22-2009 10:08 AM

Re: Putting Every Child on a Path to College
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 121131)
So if Obama came out for boosting trade schools and community colleges, you'd applaud that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Inves...on-Initiative/

I cringe at the thought of Obama boosting anything. That, in my opinion, is not his job. Just as creating jobs is not the realm of the Congress or the president and every time I hear a Dem boast of having created 100,00 new jobs I want to throw something at him/her.

Again, we're talking free markets here. I think the trend towards college education for everyone has been a misguided one. As a lot of folks pointed out, not everyone is suited for that enterprise. There are a lot of people who would never get more than a low 'C' in a university class, who would make a great entrepreneur in a trade.

I hope this trend will turn around and that blue collar trades' people, of which I am one, will one again become a force in this economy. But please, let the governement stay out of it.

harkin 07-22-2009 10:43 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
It should not be lost in this discussion that Jerry Nadler is listed as a white man who 'gets it' regarding the black community.

A guy who benefits from and runs interference into investigations of a group that perpetuates fraud and is a disgrace to the community it purports to serve is someone who gets it?

Yikes.

claymisher 07-22-2009 11:23 AM

Re: swimming pools
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by breadcrust (Post 121145)
No, if you look at the list more carefully (you didn't because you're only looking for a way to score points, not learn) you'll see that the incidence of black drownings is much higher in almost every category, not just hotel/motel. Notice the numbers in "public pool (camp, church, city)." These are the ostensibly supervised municipal pools. The numbers are stark.

But because I figured you just weren't telling anywhere near the whole story (what with the fact that you're implying the NIH nerds are bigots) I checked for lifeguard scanning patterns. Noting that your alleged method was recommended by Red Cross, I also found through wikipedia the group NASCO, who have this statement in their online text for why black males may drown so much more frequently than others:



Well, you know that there are obvious average physical differences between those of different races, but I'm sure you'll just say that NASCO is a collection of racists on par with me and the NIH.

And none of this amounts to me advocating blocking pool access to anyone for racial reasons, but paying a little better attention to classes of people associated with a high incidence of drowning... to lessen the risk of drowning as the NIH paper recommends. As for this diavlog: who knows what the hell was going on at the world's most racist pool? All you liberals just assume racism, but you think the same thing about the NIH, so who cares?

Did the NIH report says what the odds were of a person walking into a pool and drowning? No. I'm not saying everbody is equally likely to drown. I'm just saying lifeguards shouldn't get cute with theories. As for calling the NIH bigots, I never said that and you know it. And my whole fucking point about my initial post was that I wouldn't call anybody racist without knowing what the facts about the pool were.

You would make more sense if you quoted the straw man directly and left me out of it.

popcorn_karate 07-22-2009 11:29 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 121108)
This is no big deal! Give it up!

true. it just sticks in my craw when people make statements that seem so obviously wrong-headed. Its like finding out that you all think the earth is flat - "whaaaaa?!!" That is the level of oddness I experience when you all say that she means the exact opposite of what her words plainly mean by any common understanding of the words.

oh well.

pampl 07-22-2009 11:36 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 121158)
It should not be lost in this discussion that Jerry Nadler is listed as a white man who 'gets it' regarding the black community.

A guy who benefits from and runs interference into investigations of a group that perpetuates fraud and is a disgrace to the community it purports to serve is someone who gets it?

Yikes.

I know, it's almost as bad as someone saying they support the widows of 9/11 but dismissing a 9/11 truther. Part of respecting a group is buying into every nutty partisan conspiracy theory about them, so anyone who really respected the widows would know Bush did 9/11.

edit: Actually, that's a pretty bad example because there exist people on the right who believe it. A better example is that Diebold voting machines secretly overcount votes for the GOP. Is Diebold a disgrace to the middle class white male community? If someone dismissed these claims out of hand, would that mean they don't "get it"?

popcorn_karate 07-22-2009 11:56 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121147)
Funny how when someone disagrees with you it's an "invitation to a pissing match." Of course all of the times you register disagreement, you're being well-reasoned and insightful, right?

also funny that Jeff, Stephanie, and Clay have all registered their disagreements with me, but strangely, they don't sound like arrogant douche bags when they do it - they sound more like people having a discussion and at least pretending that they have some basic level of respect and good will towards the person they are communicating with.

it is not the disagreement that is annoying and offensive it is your condescending attitude, BJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121147)
Nice to hear you say so, but I really don't think you have any awareness of the extent of the problem

this could be true(though i don't think it is) - and might even warrant discussion. i might learn something if you have some poignant anecdote, or an insight, or a perspective i haven't had before. that would be sweet!


Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121147)
or what the word even means.

this is why people think you are an arrogant, bitter douche bag.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121147)
I'm sorry, but calling Sotomayor's statement "racist" is either the sort of whining you hear from the sort of self-pitying white guys who think Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are right, or it's meaning-stretching-into-meaninglessness of the Jonah Goldberg/"liberal fascism" level.

yeah yeah whatever - i'm bill o'reilly and jonah goldberg rolled into one because i think Sotomayor made a racist statement at some point. She apparently agrees with my interpretation enough to walk back her statement and say she should not have used the word "better" (which in my opinion is what made it a racist statement).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 121147)
Further, your attempt to blur Jeff's views with mine with those of "others" tells me that you're just blindly lashing out against ... who knows. Let's just call it a stereotype of some imagined group's behavior.

you, steph, jeff, and clay have all said that the context of the statement shows that it is not "racist". is this "blurring your views", BJ? any one else? jeff steph, clay - is that misrepresenting your positions? or are you all in general agreement about that point? if you are, then this criticism is just more bitter douche baggery, BJ.

I hope you have a good day, BJ.

claymisher 07-22-2009 12:01 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 121164)
also funny that Jeff, Stephanie, and Clay have all registered their disagreements with me, but strangely, they don't sound like arrogant douche bags when they do it - they sound more like people having a discussion and at least pretending that they have some basic level of respect and good will towards the person they are communicating with.

Well, you were being an incredible jerk about it, but I thought I'd let it slide.

popcorn_karate 07-22-2009 01:07 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
on re-reading, i might have to at least partially agree with that assessment, clay.

thanks for your equanimity.

claymisher 07-22-2009 09:31 PM

Olopade & McWhorter
 
Does everybody else enjoy this pairing as much as I do? Step aside Glenn Loury -- make way for Olorter!

(Don't worry Glenn -- I still like Loury & Cohen.)

nikkibong 07-22-2009 09:55 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 121032)
This is such a Reed College answer. They've condition you well Nikkibong.

If you mean I realize that people of varying races have varying perspectives on race and experiences in the United States . . . well then, yes, I suppose I'm pleased with the education I recieved.

I'm sure one day the school you went to will recieve its accreditation.

Lyle 07-23-2009 12:56 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Nikkibong,

... but there is more to perspective than race alone Nikkibong. :) I'm not sure many Reed graduates learn that until after they've left, but you'll will learn it to one day.

And don't worry, my university is accredited.

claymisher 07-23-2009 01:37 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 121348)
Nikkibong,

... but there is more to perspective than race alone Nikkibong. :) I'm not sure many Reed graduates learn that until after they've left, but you'll will learn it to one day.

And don't worry, my university is accredited.

Really? You're joking, right? I thought you were in middle school.

bjkeefe 07-23-2009 09:24 AM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 121363)
Really? You're joking, right? I thought you were in middle school.

I think it's at least clear Lyle was rejected by Reed College.

Salt 07-23-2009 12:50 PM

Re: The Barbaric Yawp (Dayo Olopade & John McWhorter)
 
Dayo and John do a great job of cloaking their racism and then repeating it a thousand times. It should be a prerequisite for the Supreme Court that you don't make racist comments like "Latinas are wiser than X." Liberals like to think theirs is the only group that ever nominates hispanics or blacks, but it is patently untrue. Liberals are the only ones who nominate minorities who specialize in racial and racist comments (and in Sotomayor's case, quotas). John and Dayo may think their group is wiser than other racial groups because of their race or ethnicity or "experience", but there isn't alot of empirical evidence out there to support this. Also, attacking the senators for objecting to Sotomayor's racist comments is just raising the stakes once again. Always on the offensive, these liberals. Furthermore, this canard about white people not being aware of the differences between "white land" and the "other land" is absurd. It's obvious to everyone. I don't think it's really fair to call it "white land" either. There are alot of Asian faces in "white land". If white people had to have a concern, it should be how to perform more like Asian Americans do. Racial/racist bluster seems to be inversely proportional to economic performance for most ethnic groups.

claymisher 07-23-2009 01:06 PM

Colbert
 
Quote:

"For instance, take the Dred Scott case. Those justice's life experience, being white men in pre-civil war America some of whom owned slaves, in no way influenced their decision that black people were property. And, their personal backgrounds had nothing to do with the all-neutral court decision that it was legal to send Japanese Americans to internment camps in 1942. Imagine how the life experience of an Asian judge would have sullied that neutrality."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/t...weighs_judicia


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.