Before responding to Sarah’s latest string of tendentious, sob-sister assertions, let’s take a reality check:
i) Suppose a normal man has a choice between dating Rosie O'Donnell and Lena Horne. Will he “consciously/unconsciously” discriminate against the black woman in favor of the white woman? I don’t think so. Clearly looks and charisma trump race.
ii) Likewise, if Bill Clinton and Thomas Sowell were running for president, would I favor the white candidate over the black candidate? Obviously not. I’d choose a black conservative over a white liberal any day of the week.
iii) What about multiracial sports teams, military units, and the like. Don’t the members of the sports team or military units share a sense of camaraderie which transcends race?
iv) In my observation, social class is more relevant to social acceptance than race or ethnicity.
Finally, Sarah keeps talking about “unconscious” racism. Of course, the beauty of imputing unconscious motives to people is that it’s unfalsifiable.
SMOKERING SAID:
“Yes, racism will never cease in a fallen world. Neither will spousal abuse, but that doesn't mean laws can't be enacted to outlaw some forms of it, which may eventually result in a societal shift away from certain manifestations if it.”
i) What manifestations of racism are you alluding to?
ii) Do you think we should rectify spousal abuse by beating up on husbands who are not wife-beaters?
“Unspoken indeed, as I never said anything like that. I've heard people say that in academic discourse racism equals prejudice plus power on a systemic level, so that while a Black person in America could be prejudiced he couldn't technically be racist (being in the non-powerful group).”
I see. So black policemen, black judges, black mayors, black Congressmen, &c., are powerless. A white pizza delivery boy has more power than a black police chief, is that your argument?
“Universities in America are very largely controlled by white people.”
Universities in America are largely controlled by white liberals. Therefore, you’re imputing systemic racism to institutions controlled by white liberals.
The solution is to purge American universities of white liberals.
“Well... what? It's worth mentioning, because you don't seem to be aware of that ideology.”
Listen, young lady, I lived through the Sixties civil rights movement. I watched the network news. I attended public school I-12. I’ve been exposed to liberal politics all my life. So spare me the unctuous notion that I’m unacquainted with liberal ideology.
“It is racist stereotyping to state that white people have conscious and unconscious biases towards POC?”
By definition, that’s grossly prejudicial.
“I'm stating a social trend.”
You’re asserting a social trend.
“I wasn't aware that anyone denied the existence of racism in hiring and applications.”
Actually, it’s circular. Affirmative action requires an applicant to check a box to identify his race on the application form. If the application form didn’t require the applicant to reveal his racial identity, then in many or most cases, a college admissions board would be in no position to know the race of the application, and therefore in no position to discriminate against him even if it were so inclined.
“Even having a name that ‘sounds’ Black is enough to prevent some people getting hired; surely that indicates racism to you?”
i) Black-sounding names like “Colin Powell,” you mean?
ii) If you think corporations and college admissions boards are racist, then they’d be racist in how they enforce affirmative action, yes? Same with state and federal gov’t. If you think whites are bound to be racist, then white officials, who “control” state and federal gov’t, would be racist in how they enforce affirmative action. So how is that any solution, even on your own terms?
At best, the only way to prevent racist college admissions boards from discriminating against minorities would be to use arbitrary quotas. Is that what you’re proposing?
“I don't see that they're more salient in terms of getting hired or accepted to colleges.”
Now you’re changing the argument. You originally talked about “centuries” of “systemic” racism. How do you think that is a salient factor in 21C hiring or college admissions?
“On Triablogue you frequently call for the government to fix injustice - for example, outlawing abortion. You don't dismiss that as ‘paternalism’ towards the fetuses.”
Well, that’s a very revealing comparison on your part. Yes, I think we should baby babies. Adults have a duty to be paternalistic towards little children.
To judge by your comparison, you think white adults should treat adult minorities like children who require the adult supervision of enlightened whites. Speaking for myself, I don’t view myself as the grown-up in relation to minorities.
“What makes you say this isn't the government's problem, while other injustices are?”
Of course, that begs the question by assuming there’s a systemtic injustice in reference to hiring and admissions which gov’t needs to rectify.
“I believe systemic racism is a problem and results in plenty of POC being denied jobs in favour of equally qualified white people for no reason other than race; and I think something should be done about it.”
The only systemic racism I see is emanating from the power centers of liberal ideology.
“I'd like a charitable discussion on this, if you're up for that.”
I'd like a rational discussion on this, if you're up for that.
“Now you've admitted that injustice exists, what is the next step?”
Purge the liberal media, academia, the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches of white liberal racists.
“People’s resumes are being chucked out because they have Black-sounding names, and that's not a good thing either.”
Didn’t seem to be a hurdle for Barack Hussein Obama. Or is that a white-sounding name?
“Having a white-sounding name is something else.”
What does a “white-sounding” name sound like, exactly? How does that compare with a “black-sounding” name. Does “Jeremiah Wright” sound white or black?
Her biggest problem, like for most, if not all, Liberals, is the foolish notion that all of us must somehow be equal, or the system is unjust.
ReplyDeleteEven when you point out, as you have done time and time again with her, the obvious problems in her arguments, she ignores them and retreats back to their age-old, worn-out liberal bromides.
I grew up in the 60's during the "Revolution" of 1968. The same propaganda is being pitched with the same regularity, except now it has moved to the mainstream. That doesn't make it any more true, just more lethal.
By the way, do you think she knows how profane the word "sucks" is? We used to use that term when I was in junior college, and, I assure you, she has no idea what it really means.
Just a little nomenclatureism lesson, if you please?
ReplyDeleteAs I have said in here on more than just the last two or so posts, I am a Californian, an Indian, a mixed breed dude. My Dad is Pomo Indian and my mother is a mix of Irish and Swedish.
However, my last name is so British and my complexion is more Anglo than Reddish skinned I am mistaken for being a "white guy".
Why, once in my Casino shortly after assuming one of the most powerful positions there, a Gaming Commissioner, I came up to our cafe and two sincerely "White" waitresses were at the till. I ordered the special and was standing in line waiting to pay for my meal, even though I could "sign" for it and not have to pay. While waiting the two waitresses were carrying on about all the "xxxx"-Indian employees in the Casino and how racist they were! They even began talking trash about my Cousin, the Chairperson of the Tribe. That caught my attention sufficient enough that when it came my turn to pay I decided to "comp" myself and promptly showed them my "Federal I.D."!
If a White Waitress's skin could have turned any whiter in that place, theirs did!
But, how did I get the last name I carry? Well, shortly before or during the Gold rush days in California a British ship, under the command of Sir Francis Drake sailed into the San Francisco Bay and many Englishmen and their wives and children leaving portside headed north to the area of my people and settled. It became their custom to "capture" little indian boys and girls and force them to live lives of domestics of various chores and labors. The way these folks distinguished who was whose was by the "name" of the Pioneering Settler. Hence my forefather, who was captured and made their force helper was allowed to marry an indian girl and all of their children, my three, Great Grand Father and two Great Uncles bore that name. Now, six generations later, I and the males that bear his name name our sons that name. We are clearly California Natives bearing the Englishman's name!
Who is to be found at fault then? And who should pay us for all the emotional distress we bear for bearing the Whiteman's name? :)
Phm 1:7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you.
Phm 1:8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required,
Phm 1:9 yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you--I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus--
Phm 1:10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.
Phm 1:11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.)
Phm 1:12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart.
Phm 1:13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel,
Phm 1:14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord.
Phm 1:15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever,
Phm 1:16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother--especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Phm 1:17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me.
Phm 1:18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.
Phm 1:19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it--to say nothing of your owing me even your own self.
Well, Hays, as usual you sure don’t leave much for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think I see a few choice bites I’d like to nibble on:
“Suppose a normal man has a choice between dating Rosie O'Donnell and Lena Horne. Will he “consciously/unconsciously” discriminate against the black woman in favor of the white woman? I don’t think so. Clearly looks and charisma trump race.”
Sheesh, Hays, if the choice is Rosie O’Donnell I’d even choose Moms Mabley.
Also, “looks and charisma”? How about class, beauty, talent, courage, grace, and all the other things Rosie couldn’t find even if her girlfriend gave her a cheat sheet.
“Don’t the members of the sports team or military units share a sense of camaraderie which transcends race?”
Which reminds me, when is the NBA going to stop discriminating against white folks?
“Do you think we should rectify spousal abuse by beating up on husbands who are not wife-beaters?”
Naw, I think there should be affirmative action for beaten wives; for every beaten wife, there should be an equal, and necessary, beaten husband, that is until the beatens and the beatees are equal.
“Universities in America are largely controlled by white liberals.”
Can’t agree with you there; universities in this country are largely controlled by Marxists.
“The solution is to purge American universities of white liberals.”
Yes, and left-wing propaganda from the Humanities Departments.
“Even having a name that ‘sounds’ Black is enough to prevent some people getting hired; surely that indicates racism to you?”
Black sounding names? Like, what? Charley Paddock: white or black? Jim Brown: white or black? Charley Smith: white or black? Willie Shoemaker; white or black? Bob Gibson; white or black? Archie Leach; white or black? (I thought you’d appreciate that one Stevarino) Enquiring minds want to know.
“I believe systemic racism is a problem and results in plenty of POC being denied jobs in favour of equally qualified white people for no reason other than race; and I think something should be done about it.”
There’s the money quote, “I believe systematic racism is a problem…and I think something should be done about it.”
I believe systemic leftism is a problem in our government (esp. here in California!) and think something should be done about it. But, she has no problem with leftist politics since she lives in that leftist utopia, New Zealand.
For a start: I'm not a liberal, either theologically or politically. I don't fit squarely into either camp, but I certainly wouldn't be welcome in the liberal one. :p
ReplyDeleteAs to the "reality check": it is irrelevant to my post, as I never claimed race was the only criterion by which people are judged. What I did was provide links to studies demonstrating that racial bias does exist. Steve has not engaged with these articles, instead preferring to sneer at me for being a :sob-sister". What precisely the Christ-like emotional response to studies demonstrating racism is, I'm not sure. “Let 'em rot?”
"Finally, Sarah keeps talking about “unconscious” racism. Of course, the beauty of imputing unconscious motives to people is that it’s unfalsifiable."
There have been studies done on unconscious racism; critique them if you like.
"i) What manifestations of racism are you alluding to?"
POC being denied jobs due to teir race, for one,
"ii) Do you think we should rectify spousal abuse by beating up on husbands who are not wife-beaters?"
The argument for AA (which, I'll repeat, I'm not convinced of) is more like: "In this fallen world, 10 people will get beaten up; right now they're women, let's make it men for a change ii) If you think corporations and college admissions boards are racist, then they’d be racist in how they enforce affirmative action, yes? Same with state and federal gov’t. If you think whites are bound to be racist, then white officials, who “control” state and federal gov’t, would be racist in how they enforce affirmative action. So how is that any solution, even on your own terms?
At best, the only way to prevent racist college admissions boards from discriminating against minorities would be to use arbitrary quotas. Is that what you’re proposing?because men have other privileges women's don't, and are on the whole in a better political position". Kind of. Not the best analogy.
"I see. So black policemen, black judges, black mayors, black Congressmen, &c., are powerless. A white pizza delivery boy has more power than a black police chief, is that your argument?"
Are you deliberately misunderstanding my argument? I have never said race is the only factor in power. All other things being equal, a Black policeman has less privilege/power than a white one; same for people in other professions. Why? Because America is full of racist people who think less of Black people than white and treat them accordingly.
"Universities in America are largely controlled by white liberals. Therefore, you’re imputing systemic racism to institutions controlled by white liberals.
The solution is to purge American universities of white liberals."
Both Liberals and Republicans can be racist. America certainly hasn't been free of racism under any government in power. Purging racist faculty members, leaders etc from universities - OK, good idea. How? How would the government determine who was racist and who was not?
"Listen, young lady, I lived through the Sixties civil rights movement. I watched the network news. I attended public school I-12. I’ve been exposed to liberal politics all my life. So spare me the unctuous notion that I’m unacquainted with liberal ideology."
ReplyDeleteThen, er, old man, why did you post your original, shall we say, tendentious juxtaposition of quotes? If you're familiar with AA proponents, you will know that they (or at least, some – all those I’ve read) agree that AA is racial profiling - in which case your original post was hardly news - and that they have arguments attempting to justify AA in spite of it. Why take a cheap shot, Michael Moore-style, when you know the issue's more complex than that?
"By definition, that’s grossly prejudicial....You’re asserting a social trend."
I provided links to studies about the issues I raised. You haven't engaged with them. You have already admitted racism exists as a social phenomenon, so why get on your high horse when I point it out? You're happy to point out negative social trends in Black communities, and I'm not leaping down your throat saying you're "asserting" that a drug subculture exists. Can we get on with a fruitful discussion?
"Actually, it’s circular. Affirmative action requires an applicant to check a box to identify his race on the application form. If the application form didn’t require the applicant to reveal his racial identity, then in many or most cases, a college admissions board would be in no position to know the race of the application, and therefore in no position to discriminate against him even if it were so inclined."
OK, although a board might be able to work it out from other clues (names, schools attended, address etc). But don't some colleges require interviews? Not to mention most jobs. One hardly needs to tick a box if one shows up with dark skin.
"i) Black-sounding names like “Colin Powell,” you mean?"
So it wouldn't have worked on him. But what point are you making here? The study used names the researchers felt were recognisably Black - I presume they got it from census data. Are you criticising the legitimacy of the study? Or saying that because many POC have names that can pass for white (or change them to avoid racism) that somehow negates the point of the study?
"ii) If you think corporations and college admissions boards are racist, then they’d be racist in how they enforce affirmative action, yes? Same with state and federal gov’t. If you think whites are bound to be racist, then white officials, who “control” state and federal gov’t, would be racist in how they enforce affirmative action. So how is that any solution, even on your own terms?
At best, the only way to prevent racist college admissions boards from discriminating against minorities would be to use arbitrary quotas. Is that what you’re proposing???”
I’m not proposing anything at this point; I’m asking for a solution that’s better than AA or simply getting rid of AA. (I’m trying, in fact, to discuss the issue with someone who has a good logical mind, without being pilloried in the process.) Possibly a “blind” system such as you mentioned, in which candidates’ races were not mentioned and interviews were not given would help, although that would still be simplistic in terms of larger issues like poorer schools in some Black communities. It would be nice for unis to give a leg up to those students (of any colour) with talent who were hampered by bad home environments or low-decile schools – but it would be very hard to do that without interviews.
“Now you’re changing the argument. You originally talked about “centuries” of “systemic” racism. How do you think that is a salient factor in 21C hiring or college admissions?”
ReplyDeleteBecause dye to those centuries of systemic racism, a disproportionate number of those in charge of college admissions are white and racist?
“Well, that’s a very revealing comparison on your part. Yes, I think we should baby babies. Adults have a duty to be paternalistic towards little children.
To judge by your comparison, you think white adults should treat adult minorities like children who require the adult supervision of enlightened whites. Speaking for myself, I don’t view myself as the grown-up in relation to minorities.”
OK, but follow my argument through – on Triablogue you call for government intervention on behalf of all sorts of people. Not just babies. Old people. Sick people. People in positions of reduced political power. POC are in a position of reduced power, as evidenced by the fact that people often deny them jobs, houses etc because of their colour. As such. Is it not our Christian duty to address that? It in no way implies treating POC like children, however nicely that fits in with your jibes at me. It implies treating them like human beings (not necessarily by implementing AA, of course). If abolitionists had decided lobbying to free slaves was so very Victorian and paternalistic and sob-sistery, millions of people might well still be in slavery. Yes, racial attitudes need adjusting since them, but not to the point of ignoring social injustice.
“Of course, that begs the question by assuming there’s a systemic injustice in reference to hiring and admissions which gov’t needs to rectify.”
Again – I linked to studies, and there are dozens more you must be aware of.
“The only systemic racism I see is emanating from the power centers of liberal ideology.”
OK, so propose a way to fix it. So far all you’ve offered is “get rid of all the liberals” and “abolish AA” - hardly a complete, workable solution.
“I'd like a rational discussion on this, if you're up for that.”
Are you prepared to endeavor to be both civil and rational? This isn’t a rhetorical question searching for some mean-spirited repartee. I’m really wanting to know. I appreciate youtr insights, but not to the point I’m happy to subject myself to your particular brand of gotta-win-’em-all. Tell me now if you’ve spent the last ten minutes thinking up curly insults, and I’ll happily continue my discussions with other T’bloggers in the other combox and leave you alone.
“Didn’t seem to be a hurdle for Barack Hussein Obama. Or is that a white-sounding name?”
Again... what is your point here? For one thing, white racists jumped all over Obama’s “terrorist” name when he was running. For another, since I have never claimed that no Black person cn ever succeed in his career with a recognisably Black name. I pointed to a study showing that people with names deemed by the researchers to be “Black-sounding” got fewer job interviews than comparable CVs of people with names deemed to be “White-sounding”. I never claimed all names were recognisably Black or White, either. You’re carping for no productive reason.
SMOKERING SAID:
ReplyDelete“As to the ‘reality check’: it is irrelevant to my post, as I never claimed race was the only criterion by which people are judged.”
You indulge in sweeping imputations of what motives white people.
“If you think corporations and college admissions boards are racist, then they’d be racist in how they enforce affirmative action, yes? Same with state and federal gov’t. If you think whites are bound to be racist, then white officials, who ‘control’ state and federal gov’t, would be racist in how they enforce affirmative action. So how is that any solution, even on your own terms?”
Maybe you need to ask your husband what a tu quoque argument is. Was I answering you on “my” terms? No. I was answering you own your own terms.
“Kind of.”
So if you support a quota system, then academic qualifications would be irrelevant to the admission of minorities. Skin color, not competence, would be the only criterion. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who was admitted on those terms?
“I have never said race is the only factor in power.”
That’s the only factor you focus on.
“All other things being equal, a Black policeman has less privilege/power than a white one.”
He doesn’t have the same legal authority as a white cop?
“Because America is full of racist people who think less of Black people than white and treat them accordingly.”
As a New Zealander, you’re in absolutely no position to know that. For some reason you imagine that you have the right to engage in wholesale defamation of 300 million (give or take) perfect strangers.
“Both Liberals and Republicans can be racist.”
American universities aren’t controlled by Republicans. Have you ever read the stats on party affiliation in American academia?
“How would the government determine who was racist and who was not?”
How about people like Sarah Tennant who resort to blanket smears of Caucasians. That’s a good index.
“Then, er, old man, why did you post your original, shall we say, tendentious juxtaposition of quotes?”
If, in response to you, I quote an Ivy League educated black economist, who has taught at Ivy League institutions, on the detrimental effects of AA, that’s “tendentious”?
“You have already admitted racism exists as a social phenomenon…”
In the liberal establishment–which is pushing AA.
“You're happy to point out negative social trends in Black communities…”
There are black pundits who point that out (e.g. Stephen Carter, Ward Connerly, Bill Cosby, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Tom Sowell). So it’s not as if this represents my white, outsider’s view of the situation.
“OK, although a board might be able to work it out from other clues (names, schools attended, address etc).”
Now you’re getting really conspiratorial. Try removing your tinfoil hat.
“Or saying that because many POC have names that can pass for white (or change them to avoid racism) that somehow negates the point of the study?”
You have things backwards. According to AA, the names which wouldn’t make the cut are “white-sounding,” not “black-sounding,” names. That’s the point. AA discriminates against white applicants, or other minority applications of the “wrong” kind (e.g. Asian-American overachievers).
If a white applicant wanted to be admitted, it would be safer for him to use a “black-sounding” name (whatever that means).
“But don't some colleges require interviews?”
You were the one who brought up names, not me. Now you’re admitting that names are insufficient.
Cont. “Because dye to those centuries of systemic racism, a disproportionate number of those in charge of college admissions are white and racist?”
ReplyDeleteWell that’s rather silly. Jews have also been subject to discrimination in the past. That hasn’t prevented them from breaking through the glass ceiling once the laws were changed.
“OK, but follow my argument through – on Triablogue you call for government intervention on behalf of all sorts of people. Not just babies. Old people. Sick people. People in positions of reduced political power.”
There’s an obvious difference between repealing laws that kill the innocent, or preventing the enactment of such laws in the first place (e.g. euthanasia), on the one hand, and gov’t intervention to force equality of outcome.
“For one thing, white racists jumped all over Obama’s ‘terrorist’ name when he was running.”
Racism cuts both ways. What about Obama’s knee-jerk comments about Massachusetts cops who arrested a black prof.? What about his prejudicial remarks about blue-collar whites ("It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.")? What about all the black voters who rubberstamp Obama simply because he is one of their won? Isn’t that racist? And so on and so forth.
“I provided links to studies about the issues I raised.”
Let’s see. You cite a study that bemoans the difficulty of “male ex-offenders” finding employment. Boo hoo.
It also says “A couple of factors that work against young black men is their portrayal in the media as gangsters, thugs and rappers on the fringes of society, and the fact that more black men are going to prison than college, according to a report by the U.S. Justice Department.”
Well, it’s not just the “media” that popularizes that image. It’s the black community itself. Black film directors. Black hip-hop “artists.” So don’t blame whites for that.
Likewise, don’t blame whites if blacks offend at a higher rate than whites.
You also cite a NYT article, a slanted source, with a few anecdotal vignettes.
You also cite a 20/20 “report” about “black/white sounding” sounding names. However, the report offers no evidence that these names sounded “white” or “black” to the businesses in question. Why should I assume the businesses are as race-conscious as 20/20 journalists? What makes “Princess” a black-sounding name, exactly?
You also cite a Guardian article. How that’s germane to the US, situation, you don’t explain.
“I appreciate youtr insights, but not to the point I’m happy to subject myself to your particular brand of gotta-win-’em-all.”
No, I’m really not interested in having a conversation on race-relations in America with an ignorant, arrogant, officious know-it-all who presumes to slander millions of perfect strangers.
I’m American, you aren’t. I grew up among Americans, you didn’t. I’ve been immersed in American society, culture, and media for 50 years. Take your smear-campaign elsewhere.
As you clearly have no wish to be civil, I'll just respond to the slurs on my character.
ReplyDelete"No, I’m really not interested in having a conversation on race-relations in America with an ignorant, arrogant, officious know-it-all who presumes to slander millions of perfect strangers.
I’m American, you aren’t. I grew up among Americans, you didn’t. I’ve been immersed in American society, culture, and media for 50 years. Take your smear-campaign elsewhere."
1. I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe all white Americans are racist, yet you respond as if I have said that. You are not personally acquainted with the millions of liberals you accuse of racism, yet you have no problem talking about "racist white liberals", nor have I responded as if you meant every single liberal. We agree that millions of white Americans are racist; yet from me, that's a smear campaign, whereas from you it's acceptable.
2. I'm not American? That's news to me and my birth certificate.
3. No, I didn't grow up in America. However, I interact with Americans on a daily basis and read a number of blogs dedicated to race relations in America, written by Americans, as well as American news outlets. So I'm not entirely ignorant of American racial issues. You've even described my position as similar to the typical liberal position, indicating that I at least came to the same conclusion (in your view) as half of the American-born American-dwelling Americans.
4. I asked your opinion on a workable alternative to AA. I have also conceded every point I believe you have successfully defeated; and I have admitted that there are flaws to AA, and that I am not wholeheartedly in favour of it. Call me deluded, but I don't think that's officious, know-it-all or arrogant. You, on the other hand, have treated me like Public Enemy Number One from the get-go. From mocking compassion as "sob-sister"y to deliberately misinterpreting my arguments and taking the argument on tangents just to make a snarky comment, you have behaved like, well, an arrogant and officious know-it-all. I realise I wasn't singled out for your vitriol - you treat all of your Triablogue opponents with varying levels of hate and disdain. Where there are opportunities to educate and interact, you prefer to trample and belittle. As my husband succinctly put it, "Why do you even bother to engage with him? Steve's a jerk." Sadly, I have to agree. You have a brilliant mind, but you've lost the plot. You're happy to alienate allies and repulse unbelievers if it scores you a win. Even the arguments aren't as important any more as one-liner put-downs. You've confused being anti-everything and -everyone with being pro-Christ.
If anyone is interesting in dialoguing about alternatives to AA and the correct Christian response to issues of race, drop me a line.
Smokering said:
ReplyDelete---
If anyone is interesting in dialoguing about alternatives to AA and the correct Christian response to issues of race, drop me a line.
---
You're not interested in such dialogue, though. You're interested in crucifying an entire racial group (white people) for things they never did, and then justifying it on the basis of "It's your turn now."
For the record, I don't agree that there are millions of white racist Americans. If there were that many, groups like the KKK and the white seperatist movements wouldn't be relegated to the kook fringe. If there were that many racists, there would be a whole lot more evil actions being committed against minorities than there is.
Oh yeah, I forgot. The whites are all racist because they're white, so even when you can't demonstrate any racist motive or action on their part, it's because of hidden and unconscious racism.
Silly me, forgetting a non-prejudiced and completely reasonable argument such as that.