Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 01-06-2012, 10:47 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:15 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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.
I think it's evolved to be a laugh at accusations of racism...a meta giggle.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-06-2012 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 01-06-2012, 01:02 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
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.
So you are supporting her (mis)interpretation of Stephanie's post?
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.
Sorry Stephanie, I too misread Badhats passive aggressive "confusion" and snarky follow ups as dishonest, but upon further review, I think she is for real confused and feels for real justified in her somewhat belligerent responses to her perceived victimization. Not that I am averse to either belligerence or snark, obviously.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-06-2012 at 01:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 01-06-2012, 03:52 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.

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.

Quote:
It seems to have some unexplained parts. What laws will be passed? What rights will be recognized?
Laws against discrimination, whatever rights are recognized, although for the purpose of the discussion it makes sense to focus on those related to discrimination claims (equal protection and attendant heightened scrutiny analysis, striking down of laws against sodomy, gay marriage, so on).

Quote:
Or is this simply a libertarian analysis of how humans will proceed from discrimination to non-discrimination? From what I know libertarians see many laws as unnecessary.
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.

I don't totally buy into this -- I think the argument that anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary and that discrimination will die due to its economic irrationality is inconsistent with how the world (and employment world in particular) really works. However, I do think that it's obvious that in some sense societal changes tend to occur before legal changes, even if legal changes then work to cause a greater change.

This is a common argument re Constitutional interpretation and the recognition of rights. For example, it's obvious that Griswold v. Connecticut could only occur after society had pretty much decided that the law in question (against contraceptives) was stupid and, as such, Griswold's striking down of the law didn't change as much as people often like to suggest. I think the same is not so true re RvW, but of course that case happened after CA and NY had already liberalized their abortion laws, so who knows what would have happened in its absence and the absence of the reaction to it.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-06-2012, 08:54 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
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.
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.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 01-06-2012, 08:58 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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.
A cliche is not per se false.

Quote:
In truth, there is no defense against charges like racism, or anti-semitism, or "homophobia," or "Islamophobia" etc. when they are levelled at individuals on the basis of suppositions (surmises) about their feelings, beliefs, or biases--without any other evidence. What can I say if someone accuses me of something of which I know I am guiltless?
That is the question.

Quote:
If someone suspects me or accuses me of not liking a certain class of people, of hating them or fearing them, what else can I say but, "No, you are wrong." Only I know my own mind (heart).
Exactly. And when you are the sole defender against people who dislike you for many other reasons, what are the chances that they will accept your assertion of, "No, you are wrong"?

Quote:
DSK was accused (suspected) of rape before anyone really knew what had happened. But rape is a crime, not a thought. I am not sure why you have brought Twinswords into this. Has he accused you of racism?
I can't remember. He's falsely accused me of so many different things.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:01 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I don't recall such a quote from this forum.
I do, but I'm not going to name someone specifically because I don't have time to look for it.

Quote:
I also don't see why asking for evidence is such a horrible thing, or (if we decide that such a charge is supposed to be answered by evidence, who is going to be predisposed to both 1) believe such a charge and 2) be convinced if you say you are friends with a Black person. Anyone who is convinced by 2, in my experience, doesn't need convincing.
I don't know what you mean. I also don't see why asking for evidence is horrible.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:08 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
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.
Everyone is racist. It's also normal (shocking!). The question is a matter of degree and the actions one takes motivated by those feelings.

Quote:
I also don't think there's a huge epidemic of bogus (or for that matter real) charges of racism floating around these days.
I do. Bogus isn't the right word, but there's a mismatch between allegation and the guilty deed.

Quote:
So I don't think it's a huge problem in terms of either how bad it is if it hapens and how often it happens.
Sure. If Democrats thought that, then they'd lose a huge political weapon. Exhibit A.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-06-2012 at 09:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 01-06-2012, 10:25 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Sure. If Democrats thought that, then they'd lose a huge political weapon. Exhibit A.
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.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:08 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I don't know what you mean. I also don't see why asking for evidence is horrible.
I am saying that aside from whether claiming a black friend is the right thing to do, is not practical in terms of the stated goal of convincing people that one isn't a racist. If someone is predisposed to believe the accusation, they are not going to be dissuaded by claims of a black friend. If someone isn't so predisposed, there's no need to convince them. Either way, the black friend does nothing to reduce the odds of people believing one is a racist.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:17 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Sure. If Democrats thought that, then they'd lose a huge political weapon. Exhibit A.
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.

I suppose one could claim that it isn't racist because Gingrich knows better and he's merely trying to provoke a response and appeal to people who are racist, but that seems a distinction without a difference.

At the very least, I have trouble figuring out how someone couldn't at least see the problems with his statement, even if they disagreed as to whether it's racist.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:19 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
When did people become such wilting flowers? Is a condition of free speech that no one criticize the speech or have their own opinions?

It's hard to imagine some left-wing politically correct caricature that is as delicate and fragile about what other people's opinions are.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:29 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
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.
And I'd say it doesn't speak for itself. There is racism, there are dogwhistles, there are uncomfortable truths, and there are people genuinely trying to help.

Quote:
At the very least, I have trouble figuring out how someone couldn't at least see the problems with his statement, even if they disagreed as to whether it's racist.
Above.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:43 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
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.
Not on a team hoss, and that ain't what Stephanie said, but you can read her post again if it helps.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:52 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:39 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Not on a team hoss, and that ain't what Stephanie said, but you can read her post again if it helps.
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.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 01-07-2012, 01:23 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
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.
Well it would have been nice if this had been your reply to me upthread before you blew your stack.

I feel like someone who is wandering around a department store after the doors have been closed and locked...

This has been very interesting experience, hanging around the threads at bhtv but I agree with others who have posted on the new venue that the experience will no longer be as interesting. Too bad.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-07-2012 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 01-07-2012, 01:28 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
A cliche is not per se false..
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)

Quote:
That is the question..
There is no answer. You asked me how someone can defend himself against the charge of racism. I explained that there is no defense since the charge is based on unverifiable conjectures about thoughts, beliefs and attitudes.

Quote:
Exactly. And when you are the sole defender against people who dislike you for many other reasons, what are the chances that they will accept your assertion of, "No, you are wrong"?.
Life is tough, isn't it?

Last edited by Florian; 01-07-2012 at 02:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:24 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default @ Declarations of War

I was curious to find out just how often Congress has issued a formal declaration of war and the result can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States


An interesting passage is here:

The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.




And as far as approval goes, while formal declarations have been rarer, you also find plenty of instances of congressional authorizations that are below formal declarations. i.e. Iraq, the barbary wars were never formally declared but they were authorized.


At the very least, looking at the historical record indicates that the idea that there must be a formal declaration of war for it to be legitimate (not talking about the wisdom of the wars, more the legality that Glenn hinted at) is false. More than that, it cannot be claimed that this was a recent perversion of the original intention, you had founders/presidents go either way depending on the occasion.



Another question on all this is if a formal declaration is not needed to wage war legally, why even bother with it in the first place? Personally, I think the standard for a formal declaration of war should be limited to more substantial TOTAL Wars, the kind you found in WWII, the stakes should be higher, but maybe you all can convince me that is foolish and insane. Deposition of leadership is a much more substantial goal than say, stopping pirating and kidnapping. Of course Iraq was a deposition of leadership among other things, so maybe the scales of the conflict factors in as well, and maybe optional wars don't qualify by default.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:56 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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)
I appreciate the definition of cliche. Informative. Thank you for acknowledging that cliches are not per se false.

Quote:
There is no answer.
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.

Quote:
Life is tough, isn't it?
So, you're saying that an innocent person will have to suffer the consequences of getting stuck in unlucky situation. Didn't they make you watch 12 Angry Men in France?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 01-07-2012, 03:45 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
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.
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.

Obviously, and it should go without saying, if the accuser "suspends judgement" he is no longer making an accusation of racism, so your initial question is....kind of....pointless.

Quote:
So, you're saying that an innocent person will have to suffer the consequences of getting stuck in unlucky situation. Didn't they make you watch 12 Angry Men in France?
I said nothing of the sort.

Last edited by Florian; 01-07-2012 at 03:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-07-2012, 04:38 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
I said nothing of the sort.
You implicitly did.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:36 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
You implicitly did.
No, I did not. Show me where I implicitly said that: an innocent person will have to suffer the consequences of getting stuck in unlucky situation

All I said was: Life is tough. That means: a person suspected or accused of racism can deny the charge or try to prove that the accuser is wrong (by his actions for example), but no one is obliged to believe him.

I think you are confusing "guilt" and "innocence" in the legal sense (where they refer to actions or crimes) and guilt and innocence in the purely moral sense, where they refer to thoughts/beliefs/attitudes. Racism falls into the latter category. Do I need to repeat this again? Thoughts, beliefs, attitudes are only known to the person who has them, not to an observer. They cannot be proved or disproved.

Last edited by Florian; 01-07-2012 at 06:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-07-2012, 11:36 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
A cliché, like any other assertion about matters of fact, can be true or false.
great point and quite true.


Quote:
Clever people, however, avoid clichés---especially a cliché like this one which can be easily misunderstood.
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.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-07-2012 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:16 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:37 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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.
I know this is beating a long dead horse but I don't see that saying "some of my best friends are black" is necessarily racist. Say some poor schmuck is accused of being racist...he reacts by casting around for examples in his life which show he is not. Say he has a black neighbor or a black brother in law with whom he is on good terms and he uses these as examples of why he is not. He's certainly naive but it's no indication he is racist.

Having said all that, I hope someday soon the whole enterprise of calling people racist goes away. I'm quite sure there are racist impulses and perhaps even racist policies, even though I think most of them have been expunged. What I despise is the using of the charge as a weapon. And I also despise that there are some people who want to keep the practice alive for their own unsavory purposes.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-07-2012, 01:37 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
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.
If the problem you had was the characterization of ideological positions as singular, then you should have said that in the first place. That sort of thing is pretty commonplace, and acknowledgment of the spectrum of points of view is easy to include in a conjecture, but is fairly implied in these discussions as I have come to understand them. But your point of view may deviate some, or completely from from mine, or even other self identified libertarians (see how easy, yet verbose and pointless that was?)

My reading of the post, and it's understandable why there is confusion about this, is that most libertarians believe that social change is in the works some time before legislation is enacted enforcing said change, and they (not all of course) see the legislation as unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive, even having unintended and potentially freedom limiting consequences.
You may have read it differently but it seems to me, whether you consider her qualified to posit this conjecture or not, and perhaps I speak from ignorance, I would think you wouldn't disagree with that analysis.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-07-2012 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 01-07-2012, 01:51 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
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.
It's OK to own it, and it's the civil thing to do. You did figure it out after all, but you appear to be in defensive mode even when there's nothing to defend.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:04 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
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.
Not really, but you go with that. I know it makes you feel like you actually understand stuff.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 01-07-2012, 02:36 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Not really, but you go with that. I know it makes you feel like you actually understand stuff.
Your condescension is unwarranted IMO, as you are clearly unable to own the fact that you were originally in error:
(we all make mistakes)
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post


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.
Can't say you didn't post this stuff, whether I understand it or not!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-07-2012 at 05:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 01-07-2012, 03:37 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default BTW

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Just like a 1940s German wouldn't want to be mistaken for speaking on behalf of a Jew, eh? Filthy Jews!
Godwin loves you my son.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 01-07-2012, 05:47 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
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!
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.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 01-07-2012, 05:52 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
So you are snowed by even your own words. Do you deny posting them?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:02 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
So you are snowed by even your own words. Do you deny posting them?
no.

I'll ask again. What was my error?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:17 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Ask LBJ, To Rebut Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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.
Well clearly an Empire doesn't have to be "multi-ethnic", even though America is. I believe what you mean is "multi-cultural". Germany under the Kaiserreich was pretty much a singular ethnic conglomerate, with the exception of some number of Poles. It was justifiably an Empire in that it was composed of former real states.

The Romans also assimilated subject peoples. Your language speaks to this, as does a large portion of mine. Yet no one would argue against the Roman Republic being an Empire in a real sense. The Japanese and Chinese have also been Empires even while their domain has been relatively ethnically and culturally homogenous.

Quote:
I was thinking mainly in terms of past, truly multi-ethnic empires--the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, to say nothing of the Dutch, the British, the French empires etc. In the contemporary world situation, the US is not by any means an empire in relation to other states. It is simply the military hegemon after the collapse of the (multi-ethnic) Soviet Empire.
The British and French Empires are probably the most standard modern conception of Imperium, you're right. But those are actually exceptions to the norm in the scope of history. Colonial Empires are unusual and seem to be products of a unique time of technological and social development. The United States is not a colonial Empire, but is an Empire in the more traditional sense of the word.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:44 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
no.

I'll ask again. What was my error?
You, Badhat, had it backwards, SEE?:


“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.”

“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.”

But this is pretty trivial when compared to the incessant, almost pathological denial that ensued:
"Nothing and I mean nothing about your posting a bunch of quotes does anything to prove anything."

You almost had me thinking your confusion was genuine. But do continue with your defense. The schadenfreude is delicious, made palatable only by your bourgeois belief that attitude is everything.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-07-2012 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 01-07-2012, 08:17 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
You, Badhat, had it backwards, SEE?:
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.

I had nothing backwards, although given the way Stephanie usually puts things, it wouldn't take much to get confused. Besides, all she had to do was correct me and maybe we could have come to an understanding. You will notice I started my post with "I'm sorry, I don't understand this". Instead she decided to jump the shark.

PS. But now I see Stephanie subsequently (much later and after she called me a liar and an idiot) changed what she originally wrote and said this:

To simplify -- not that this should be necessary, unless I assume readers are idiots, like badhat seems to like to portray herself -- 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.

She's the one who had it backwards or decided to amend her original statement (see above). I'm not surprised.

Take it or leave it, handle.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-07-2012 at 11:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 01-07-2012, 10:35 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
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.
Now you're softening your original stance. You said that anti-Semites used to use such cliches as if to suggest some presumption of guilt for the person who uses them. If you think that the allegations alone aren't enough to create a judgmental impression on voyeurs, then you're either naive or delusional. Do you really mean to tell me that DSK got what he deserved?

Quote:
No, I did not. Show me where I implicitly said that: an innocent person will have to suffer the consequences of getting stuck in unlucky situation

All I said was: Life is tough. That means: a person suspected or accused of racism can deny the charge or try to prove that the accuser is wrong (by his actions for example), but no one is obliged to believe him.
All fine in theory. How did that work for DSK? How many people watching thought that he was innocent or should at least reserve judgment? You and I did. Anyone else? And if you were in the same situation do you think you'd say, "Oh well, no one is obliged to believe me despite the fact that I know I'm innocent"?

Quote:
I think you are confusing "guilt" and "innocence" in the legal sense (where they refer to actions or crimes) and guilt and innocence in the purely moral sense, where they refer to thoughts/beliefs/attitudes. Racism falls into the latter category. Do I need to repeat this again? Thoughts, beliefs, attitudes are only known to the person who has them, not to an observer. They cannot be proved or disproved.
No, I think you are selective with your attitude towards people alleged with wrongdoing. I recall you rigorously defended DSK during the media trial as if French pride hung in the balance. I might be one of the few Americans who still believes in innocent until proven guilty. Everyone else seems so fucking sure.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 01-07-2012, 10:39 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
If the problem you had was the characterization of ideological positions as singular, then you should have said that in the first place.
All the pieces are there. Yes, you did misread. It happens.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 01-08-2012, 01:20 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
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.
But this is clearly a ridiculous interpretation, which is what led to my assumption that you were pretending ignorance, given the following parts of my post:

Quote:
(The same argument would point out that the acceptance of the Griswold v. Connecticut argument is largely by a world that sees laws against contraceptives as silly and unpassable.)

That said, employers vary a lot, and that one sees discrimination as silly doesn't mean that others will or that even you won't prefer people like you, so I think such laws serve a purpose.
In case there is any genuine confusion, which I doubt, I was not suggesting a connection between the passage of anti-discrimation laws and society turning against discrimination. I was saying that the timing was likely close and thus libertarians would argue the anti-discrimination laws was an unnecessary cost, because they were only passed due to forces that made them unnecessary. I don't agree with this, but I consider it an unfrivolous argument. Of course, so does Glenn Loury, and SK slammed him for saying it was non frivolous and not agreeing with it.

Quote:
I had nothing backwards, although given the way Stephanie usually puts things, it wouldn't take much to get confused. Besides, all she had to do was correct me and maybe we could have come to an understanding.
I did correct you, but you ignored it or intentionally misunderstood it. What makes this particularly weird is that I wasn't even being negative about the libertarian position, which I don't agree with but have some sympathy to, and your pal SK's offense at my position seems to be that I'm accusing libertarians of all being anti-discrimination laws, the direct opposite of your own (perhaps) reading.

Last edited by stephanie; 01-08-2012 at 01:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 AM.


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