‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The necessary evil of racial identity politics for whites

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15325
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 January 2019 23:44
 
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:27 PM

By coincidence, I just now finished reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck.  The last few chapters describe what he saw in the southern US in 1960.  It put this debate thread in perspective for me.

Haven’t read the book, but saw enough in my student days in Texas in the late 60s. But for some people being white is more important than being human.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  644
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
10 January 2019 03:52
 
GAD - 09 January 2019 06:21 PM
burt - 09 January 2019 03:45 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 12:38 PM
GAD - 09 January 2019 08:13 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 January 2019 04:50 AM
Abel Dean - 08 January 2019 06:55 PM

It is about whites protecting their own lives and their own interests in the face of an external existential threat.

.

But for the idiotic racial identification you are promoting, the interests of “whites” are the same interests as anyone else.  Take away that idiotic identification and the “external existential threats” are garden-variety injustices that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.

I agree but am curious if you apply that same reasoning to all other groups that promote self interests and fight perceived injustices, women, gays, blacks, religion etc. And if, despite your proclamation, they still group together to promote self interests and fight perceived injustices against others, what should those others do besides tell them they are idiotic.

I don’t quite follow what you are asking.  Could you clarify?

He’s asking if you think Black Lives Matter is just as “idiotic” as White Power. Doesn’t see the power polarity: one group fighting for their lives, the other fighting to retain control and privilege. And Dean’s fears are that if blacks actually gain full equality then they will out breed whites and soon it will be whites who are fighting for their lives; or at least that his kids won’t be able to rely on white privilege when applying for a job.

yes the bold is what I was asking. And white privilege is made up bullshit to sell an agenda and blacks actually have full equality under the law.

Don’t fool yourself, you are every bit as biased and agenda driven as you accuse others of.

 

Setting aside the inflammatory polarity you are invoking—unnecessarily, I’d say—I would think my posting history already answers your underlying question—to wit, is the principle against racial identity politics applied to Mr. Dean here equally applied to its liberal incarnations?  In fact, in one thread where I was getting unsolicited shit (as I got from three of the most liberal posters on the board) you yourself suggested in my defense that I was getting it because I challenge their liberal pieties and don’t tow their party line, and do so “beautifully.”  Which made me wonder why you ask, in addition to not being sure what you were asking.

And to flesh out the related point here… While I think it is perfectly natural to identify with others like you who suffer wrongs because of an identifying trait you share, and to want to fight especially on their behalf to rectify a wrong, I think it is perfectly counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating to do this in terms of identity politics, which by its own stipulations on power, privilege, exclusivity and dominance exacerbates local and contingent factors that everyone has a common interest in rectifying.  So yes, if you are asking, do I think black identity politics and white identity politics, or black nationalism (on the rise, according to the SPLC) and white nationalism (on the decline, according to the SPLC) are both problems, for the same reasons, then yes, I do.

FYI this is my last word in this thread.  Correcting all the stupidities in Mr. Dean’s gentrified advocacy of a castrated ‘white supremacy’ is, to my mind, totally unnecessary, since his own self-empowerment is ultimately self-defeating in a society where people can’t even bring themselves to say the word “nigger,” even to point out one should never use it, or to condemn when it’s been used.  So I was totally sincere in my desire to see him out in the open, espousing his views shamelessly and in good faith, as though we’re all just equals here, entitled to our own points of view.  Unlike the delusional ramblings expressed here, I think the likes of Mr. Dean are as close to a moral slam dunk of self-defeat as one gets, once enduring moral progress has been made (as it has).  So the more they come out, the merrier, I say.  That makes it all the easier to isolate them in the little interactions where making them bear the cost of their views is morally appropriate.

Let’s just say unlike Mr. Piker, I have faith in the ability of people to tell right from wrong on this issue, and I don’t think we need “the collective” (~1:45) and its “structural violence” (~8:00) to insure it.

[ Edited: 10 January 2019 05:07 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7099
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
10 January 2019 11:03
 
Abel Dean - 09 January 2019 08:16 PM
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:27 PM

By coincidence, I just now finished reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck.  The last few chapters describe what he saw in the southern US in 1960.  It put this debate thread in perspective for me.

The book is probably fiction, not a factual account. John Steinbeck’s own son told the New York Times that, “He just sat in his camper and wrote all that shit,” in reference to the conversations accounted in the book. As a fiction, the book may have important lessons, but it needs to be distinguished from an honest account of people. Too many of us seem to learn about racists from their critics, and so the racists in popular myth take the shape of every villain in every tale of good versus evil. Part of the lives of the excommunicated is that nobody knows much of the truth about them.

I realize that Travels with Charley is not a literal chronicle of his trip.  It is historical fiction based on real events.  That is, the denigration of blacks and opposition to integration at that time was absolutely real, and it was ugly.  There is plenty of news footage of incidents from the 1960’s to prove that. 

Why shouldn’t people be critical of racists?  What is the truth we are missing about them?  And remember, as I said above, I’m not for anyone of any skin color being prejudiced against another group of a different color.

A question to those in favor of genetic engineering to increase intelligence:  Would you volunteer your future children or grandchlidren to take part in the experiments?

[ Edited: 10 January 2019 11:08 by hannahtoo]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  108
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 January 2019 11:35
 
hannahtoo - 10 January 2019 11:03 AM
Abel Dean - 09 January 2019 08:16 PM
hannahtoo - 09 January 2019 07:27 PM

By coincidence, I just now finished reading Travels with Charley by John Steinbeck.  The last few chapters describe what he saw in the southern US in 1960.  It put this debate thread in perspective for me.

The book is probably fiction, not a factual account. John Steinbeck’s own son told the New York Times that, “He just sat in his camper and wrote all that shit,” in reference to the conversations accounted in the book. As a fiction, the book may have important lessons, but it needs to be distinguished from an honest account of people. Too many of us seem to learn about racists from their critics, and so the racists in popular myth take the shape of every villain in every tale of good versus evil. Part of the lives of the excommunicated is that nobody knows much of the truth about them.

I realize that Travels with Charley is not a literal chronicle of his trip.  It is historical fiction based on real events.  That is, the denigration of blacks and opposition to integration at that time was absolutely real, and it was ugly.  There is plenty of news footage of incidents from the 1960’s to prove that. 

Why shouldn’t people be critical of racists?  What is the truth we are missing about them?  And remember, as I said above, I’m not for anyone of any skin color being prejudiced against another group of a different color.

A question to those in favor of genetic engineering to increase intelligence:  Would you volunteer your future children or grandchlidren to take part in the experiments?

Everyone including racists should be criticized. We go wrong when we get our information about groups EXCLUSIVELY from the critics, because that information will be distorted negatively. You ask, “What is the truth we are missing about them?” Many such truths, and I did not realize such truths until I listened to racists. For example, you have heard that racists believe that whites are by nature better than every other race. This is why they are popularly called, “white supremacists.” And yet when I talk to them directly, including those in the most hated camps such as those of David Duke, they deny white supremacy. Their rhetoric, as objectionable as it may be, seemingly has nothing to do with any belief in the supremacy of the white race. They merely believe that whites should have their own nations, just like black Africans have their own nations and Japanese have their own nation and so on. The belief in white supremacy seems to be merely an outdated vestige of Nazism, at most. You don’t have to believe my claim. But, the only way you would know whether my claim is true is by talking to the racists themselves. I give the Southern Poverty Law Center some credit for changing their ideology descriptions from “white supremacist” to “white nationalist” a few years ago. It is a change for the better (otherwise I have nothing but denunciations for the SPLC). Everywhere else, the falsehood persists.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  108
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 January 2019 11:58
 

“A question to those in favor of genetic engineering to increase intelligence:  Would you volunteer your future children or grandchlidren to take part in the experiments?”

Not in the experiments. Chimpanzees or reckless/brave parents can be the subjects of the experiments. I am looking further forward than that. It would be a time when the science of human genetics is already fully understood. Before that time, I would be more than happy to let my children be the experimental subjects of genetic editing to minimize the probability of type 1 diabetes, for example. Type 1 diabetes is my disease, it is 90% heritable, and it disproportionately affects whites. I would be willing to take almost any risk to minimize those odds, which are otherwise about 7% for each child.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7099
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
10 January 2019 15:17
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 11:58 AM

“A question to those in favor of genetic engineering to increase intelligence:  Would you volunteer your future children or grandchlidren to take part in the experiments?”

Not in the experiments. Chimpanzees or reckless/brave parents can be the subjects of the experiments. I am looking further forward than that. It would be a time when the science of human genetics is already fully understood. Before that time, I would be more than happy to let my children be the experimental subjects of genetic editing to minimize the probability of type 1 diabetes, for example. Type 1 diabetes is my disease, it is 90% heritable, and it disproportionately affects whites. I would be willing to take almost any risk to minimize those odds, which are otherwise about 7% for each child.

While I am sorry to hear you have diabetes, you have more faith in genetic engineering than I do.  My son (who works in the field) had a lot to say about the Chinese scientist’s recent claim to have engineered resistance to AIDS.  Basically, the claim was false.  I’d say the risk of creating a harmful genetic change is much greater than the risk of inheriting Type 1 diabetes.  And it would be unethical to conduct an experiment on humans in which participants would be described as reckless.  High risk experimental procedures are only carried out in cases for which there are no other options, such as for terminal patients.

[ Edited: 10 January 2019 16:03 by hannahtoo]
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7099
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
10 January 2019 15:23
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 11:35 AM

Everyone including racists should be criticized. We go wrong when we get our information about groups EXCLUSIVELY from the critics, because that information will be distorted negatively. You ask, “What is the truth we are missing about them?” Many such truths, and I did not realize such truths until I listened to racists. For example, you have heard that racists believe that whites are by nature better than every other race. This is why they are popularly called, “white supremacists.” And yet when I talk to them directly, including those in the most hated camps such as those of David Duke, they deny white supremacy. Their rhetoric, as objectionable as it may be, seemingly has nothing to do with any belief in the supremacy of the white race. They merely believe that whites should have their own nations, just like black Africans have their own nations and Japanese have their own nation and so on. The belief in white supremacy seems to be merely an outdated vestige of Nazism, at most. You don’t have to believe my claim. But, the only way you would know whether my claim is true is by talking to the racists themselves. I give the Southern Poverty Law Center some credit for changing their ideology descriptions from “white supremacist” to “white nationalist” a few years ago. It is a change for the better (otherwise I have nothing but denunciations for the SPLC). Everywhere else, the falsehood persists.

Which countries should be all white?  What would happen to the non-whites and mixed race people who live in those areas now?

And why does David Duke want to live in an all-white country?

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3107
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
10 January 2019 15:35
 

China comes at it with a totally different worldview.  Where the west grants its citizens individual human rights in order to build a great nation—China believes that once a nation achieves greatness human rights for its citizens will follow.  That’s the concept anyway.  As a given.  Imagine it another way.  There are more than a billion Chinese people currently residing in China.  The rest are scattered across the planet amounting to far greater numbers than white people residing anywhere and everywhere.  If, for any reason, they adopted this philosophy they could very well decide that whites were holding them back and the most efficient way of shoring up these pesky deficiencies would be to sterilize them.  In fact, might as well save time and simply eradicate them completely.  In the name of progress.  And this doesn’t even include all Asians.  Just the Chinese.  Ahem, just sayin.’

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15325
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
10 January 2019 15:40
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 11:58 AM

“A question to those in favor of genetic engineering to increase intelligence:  Would you volunteer your future children or grandchlidren to take part in the experiments?”

Not in the experiments. Chimpanzees or reckless/brave parents can be the subjects of the experiments. I am looking further forward than that. It would be a time when the science of human genetics is already fully understood. Before that time, I would be more than happy to let my children be the experimental subjects of genetic editing to minimize the probability of type 1 diabetes, for example. Type 1 diabetes is my disease, it is 90% heritable, and it disproportionately affects whites. I would be willing to take almost any risk to minimize those odds, which are otherwise about 7% for each child.

My sympathy for the diabetes, I have three cousins whose mother had polycystic kidney disease, which one cousin inherited and is alive now only via a kidney transplant. If a disease can to directly traced to a single gene then, with much further work, it seems reasonable to try and correct this and several cases already exist (although in early trials of techniques the subject died). The problem comes when there are entire gene networks involved. For example, many Africans carry a genetic vulnerability to sickle cell anemia, but the same genetics also provides greater resistance to malaria. With truly complex things like cognition there are multiple interacting genes involved with lots of trade-offs so that trying to improve one phenotypic expression may well have negative effects on other phenotypic expressions.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  108
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 January 2019 18:32
 
hannahtoo - 10 January 2019 03:23 PM
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 11:35 AM

Everyone including racists should be criticized. We go wrong when we get our information about groups EXCLUSIVELY from the critics, because that information will be distorted negatively. You ask, “What is the truth we are missing about them?” Many such truths, and I did not realize such truths until I listened to racists. For example, you have heard that racists believe that whites are by nature better than every other race. This is why they are popularly called, “white supremacists.” And yet when I talk to them directly, including those in the most hated camps such as those of David Duke, they deny white supremacy. Their rhetoric, as objectionable as it may be, seemingly has nothing to do with any belief in the supremacy of the white race. They merely believe that whites should have their own nations, just like black Africans have their own nations and Japanese have their own nation and so on. The belief in white supremacy seems to be merely an outdated vestige of Nazism, at most. You don’t have to believe my claim. But, the only way you would know whether my claim is true is by talking to the racists themselves. I give the Southern Poverty Law Center some credit for changing their ideology descriptions from “white supremacist” to “white nationalist” a few years ago. It is a change for the better (otherwise I have nothing but denunciations for the SPLC). Everywhere else, the falsehood persists.

Which countries should be all white?  What would happen to the non-whites and mixed race people who live in those areas now?

And why does David Duke want to live in an all-white country?

White nationalists are not white supremacists, but white nationalism has another set of problems. For white nationalists in every white nation, an uncomfortable reality is that the ship has sailed. Even if America were to completely seal its borders, the United States of America will become Latin America in almost the same amount of time. And, if they were to launch a civil war to toss out all non-whites, they would almost certainly lose. It is merely pie in the sky.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  108
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 January 2019 18:41
 
hannahtoo - 10 January 2019 03:17 PM
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 11:58 AM

“A question to those in favor of genetic engineering to increase intelligence:  Would you volunteer your future children or grandchlidren to take part in the experiments?”

Not in the experiments. Chimpanzees or reckless/brave parents can be the subjects of the experiments. I am looking further forward than that. It would be a time when the science of human genetics is already fully understood. Before that time, I would be more than happy to let my children be the experimental subjects of genetic editing to minimize the probability of type 1 diabetes, for example. Type 1 diabetes is my disease, it is 90% heritable, and it disproportionately affects whites. I would be willing to take almost any risk to minimize those odds, which are otherwise about 7% for each child.

While I am sorry to hear you have diabetes, you have more faith in genetic engineering than I do.  My son (who works in the field) had a lot to say about the Chinese scientist’s recent claim to have engineered resistance to AIDS.  Basically, the claim was false.  I’d say the risk of creating a harmful genetic change is much greater than the risk of inheriting Type 1 diabetes.  And it would be unethical to conduct an experiment on humans in which participants would be described as reckless.  High risk experimental procedures are only carried out in cases for which there are no other options, such as for terminal patients.

I mostly agree. I expect that the couples who have the best case for experimental genetic editing are parents of a child with cystic fibrosis. In those cases, absolutely every child of the couple will have the disease, and it is a disease in which the children are forever infertile and likely to die as young adults after spending their childhood persistently ill and in pain. It would be a moral hazard to NOT allow them the chance to have healthy children, and they may open the door for the rest of us.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7099
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
11 January 2019 06:29
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 06:32 PM
hannahtoo - 10 January 2019 03:23 PM
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 11:35 AM

Everyone including racists should be criticized. We go wrong when we get our information about groups EXCLUSIVELY from the critics, because that information will be distorted negatively. You ask, “What is the truth we are missing about them?” Many such truths, and I did not realize such truths until I listened to racists. For example, you have heard that racists believe that whites are by nature better than every other race. This is why they are popularly called, “white supremacists.” And yet when I talk to them directly, including those in the most hated camps such as those of David Duke, they deny white supremacy. Their rhetoric, as objectionable as it may be, seemingly has nothing to do with any belief in the supremacy of the white race. They merely believe that whites should have their own nations, just like black Africans have their own nations and Japanese have their own nation and so on. The belief in white supremacy seems to be merely an outdated vestige of Nazism, at most. You don’t have to believe my claim. But, the only way you would know whether my claim is true is by talking to the racists themselves. I give the Southern Poverty Law Center some credit for changing their ideology descriptions from “white supremacist” to “white nationalist” a few years ago. It is a change for the better (otherwise I have nothing but denunciations for the SPLC). Everywhere else, the falsehood persists.

Which countries should be all white?  What would happen to the non-whites and mixed race people who live in those areas now?

And why does David Duke want to live in an all-white country?

White nationalists are not white supremacists, but white nationalism has another set of problems. For white nationalists in every white nation, an uncomfortable reality is that the ship has sailed. Even if America were to completely seal its borders, the United States of America will become Latin America in almost the same amount of time. And, if they were to launch a civil war to toss out all non-whites, they would almost certainly lose. It is merely pie in the sky.

May I ask again—why does David Duke want to live in an all-white country?

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7099
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
11 January 2019 06:40
 

Abel Dean:
I expect that the couples who have the best case for experimental genetic editing are parents of a child with cystic fibrosis. In those cases, absolutely every child of the couple will have the disease, and it is a disease in which the children are forever infertile and likely to die as young adults after spending their childhood persistently ill and in pain. It would be a moral hazard to NOT allow them the chance to have healthy children, and they may open the door for the rest of us.

Unfortunately, scientific research must accept many failures in order to reach success.  I feel it would be immoral to experiment on unborn children because the failures would be so horribly tragic.  As Burt described, genes and proteins coded by them have multiple functions.  And learning to edit genes also is a trial and error process.  Here is an article which describes some of the research on cystic fibrosis.  Currently the work is attempting to change the DNA in the lungs of patients, rather than embryos:

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2018/gene-editing-cystic-fibrosis-qa-peter-glazer-phd-md

All this is beyond the topic of the OP, except that the idea was mentioned to try to improve intelligence through genetic engineering.  Obviously this is an idea much, much, much more complex than trying to make a specific change in one gene.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2773
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
11 January 2019 06:49
 
Abel Dean - 10 January 2019 06:32 PM

White nationalists are not white supremacists, but white nationalism has another set of problems. For white nationalists in every white nation, an uncomfortable reality is that the ship has sailed. Even if America were to completely seal its borders, the United States of America will become Latin America in almost the same amount of time. And, if they were to launch a civil war to toss out all non-whites, they would almost certainly lose. It is merely pie in the sky.

Yes, they are.  It’s just a name change in an attempt to sanitize their public image.  It’s not working.

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  145
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
12 January 2019 12:58
 

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ‘Patriotism’ is its cult. - Erich Fromm, in The Sane Society (1955)

“Nationalism is the measles of mankind. It is an infantile disease.” - attributed to Einstein

Then perhaps “White Nationalism” is the small pox of mankind? In America “Trumpism” is its enabler. Unfortunately, we can’t inoculate our children against it.

 
‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›