Search
User login
Recent News
The release of SKSK third album was almost unnoticed to me until i seen it in the target. They have moved a long way from the After Dark EP of being a deep dark sound.
Review: New Maps Of Hell
Bad Religion's new record New Maps Of Hell is amazing. The songs have so much energy && the shows to promote the new record where some of the best ive ever been to.
Review: Shorebirds - S/T 7"
With a lineup featuring ex-members of Jawbreaker and Latterman, it would have taken a lot for me not to like this record. Fortunately, that isn't the case.
Fucking idiot!
on Libertarians
-"On the matter of civil rights there isn’t too much difference between them and the Klan and we should, from this point on, lump both of them together"
http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/articlelive/articles/39131/1/Beyon...
Its funny because people still bring up those clowns in the sheets who are so insignifigant due to their small numbers as boogiemen
This is from the same paper which had an editorial in it a few weeks ago praising proffesional hate monger Farrakhan (leader of an orginization that wants to ban interacial marriage)
Wow. So now "libertarian" means that you not only can express your views in any manner you want as long it does not actually hinder the efforts of others, or rather respect that others have freedoms while you can espouse your views, but you can force your views upon those people who do not agree with you, or rather you are a fascist. Nice.
Your comment was: Oh, so you want preferential treatment? You want one race being treated differently than another race? You are a racist. Yes I am white, and I don't love black people. I love people based on who they are. That is why I want to die every second I am away from the wonderful black woman who left me months ago. And she never went to those negro-centric jerk-off festivals you call affirmative action. She got along on her own laurels, not through some guilt-trip based on race. Asshole.
I feel better.
If affirmative action were based on preferential hiring of individuals belonging racial minorities because they belong to racial minorities, it would amount to state-mandated racial discrimination.
Fortunately, affirmative action is nothing of the sort. To the extent that it mandates any sort of discrimination (and the cases in which it does are very limited, contrary to popular belief), this is discrimination based on an individual's belonging to a protected class. Discriminating in favor of someone based on their belonging to a group that historically has been (and is) discriminated against is different than discriminating in favor of someone because of their being Black, "Hispanic", or whatever else.
No its not different at all
its unnececarry government intervention
its forcing racial discrimination
WHicHis tHe opposite of wHat tHe goals of REAL civil rigHts are
tHe point is tHat my opposition of it doesnt make me some wHite supremecist
I migHt also add tHat I'm probably tHe only one on tHis board wHo would benifit from afirmative action
please ignore my capitalised H's (I Have to cut and paste as tHat key dont work)
its unnececarry government intervention
its forcing racial discrimination
WHicHis tHe opposite of wHat tHe goals of REAL civil rigHts are
tHe point is tHat my opposition of it doesnt make me some wHite supremecist
Incessantly repeating something doesn't make it true.
Racial discrimination is discrimination in favor or against a group because that group is held to be superior or inferior in some regard. Affirmative action is discrimination in favor of a group because of current and historical discrimination against that group.
Put another way: affirmative action can favor (for example) Blacks not because they're black, but because they have been (and are) disfavored.
If affirmative action is racial discrimination, then so are reparations paid to countries that invade other countries.
Not by a long shot. Affirmative action applies to women, too.
Some context: Wardell Connerly openly welcomed the presence of Klansmen in the movement against affirmative action.
It's also worth pointing out that there is, in fact, some overlap between libertarianism and white supremacism. For example, Charles Murray, one of the authors of The Bell Curve, is a prominent libertarian. And I'm sure everyone's aware of Ron Paul's seedier connections by now.
its like saying that all liberals/ media elites/ Acedemics/ leftist Union Leaders are commies
Theres enough that are to say it
it wouldnt be a very smart thing to say
as far as Ron Paul's "seedy connections" is no different than people saying Martin Luther King r was a commie
nobody is responsable for everyone that they associate with's actions
in the end calling someone something they aint is slander
Liberals aren't communists by definition. There have been virtually no prominent communist journalists in American history, and certainly not since the Cold War; and in any case, it's the owners of the media who have veto power; for owners of large corporations to support even remotely leftist positions would be suicidal. And no one who has even the most superficial familiarity with U.S. labor history could say with a straight face that communists have served any siginificant role as union leaders since the 1930s (when the Taft-Hartley Act banned them from holding union offices). With a handful of exceptions, Marxist academics are marginal figures and confined to areas of little political consequence (like English). (The same can't be said of right-wing academics, who dominate law and economics faculties.)
In other words, far from it being the case that "there's enough that are to say it," the assertion is complete fantasy.
I agree that it's wrong to say that everyone who calls him- or herself a libertarian is personally racist. But the vast majority of libertarians do advocate positions that reinforce societal racism in effect; and significant elements (though by no means all) do have ties to causes that are blatantly racist. I've already provided two examples. I'm happy to provide more.
As far as Ron Paul goes: he's never provided a satisfactory explanation for racist pieces appearing in his newsletter, and has yet to comment on the enthusiastic support he's receiving from white supremacists.
You're right that there are, and people involved in those movements should be aware of it. But whereas Left and Right pariticipate in these movements for completely different reasons, libertarians and Klansmen oppose affirmative action for reason that are ultimately pretty similar.
I dont know how many marxist there are in the US
But my point was to say they are such small numbers as are KKK people (no more tVan a few thousand in a nation of hundreds of millions)
Lumping either lefties or right wingers with the ultra left or right is pretty slanderous especially considering how divorced both extreams are with the rest of the "left" and "right"
In fact the views of a Right wing nut case are alot more in common with ultra leftists
They both have a contempt of capitalism (not so much the American ultra right of the past but very much in advocates of "third position" fascism ie racist/nationalist/imperialised socialism)
All see their movement as a struggle for liberation from the claws of an international capitalist cabal
its only different that the ultra right sees it as speciffically semetic
wow, what an asshole. That being said, i think holocaust denial laws are fairly retarded as well. Sure, it's hurtful, and inaccurate to deny the holocaust, but just ignore those fringe element fuckers and let them scream as loud as they want and just don't fucking listen.
You're right that there are, and people involved in those movements should be aware of it. But whereas Left and Right pariticipate in these movements for completely different reasons, libertarians and Klansmen oppose affirmative action for reason that are ultimately pretty similar.
-----------------
I couldn't disagree more with you on this one Sam.
First of all, the reasons for libertarians and Klansmen opposing affirmative action are completely different. Libertarians support only a minimalist government. Klansmen hate black people. I don't really see any common ground there.
Secondly, affirmative action makes very little sense from both an idealistic, utilitarian, and philosophical perspective. Favoring one race through policy, as tempting as it may be when they are dis-favored in parts of society, does not have the power to solve the root problem, and in fact makes it worse at times. Affirmative action mistakes an economic and societal problem for one of race, and in doing so, breeds more hatred towards minorities and further promotes racism. It is also insulting to assume that everyone from a particular race has an inability to stand on their own two feet regardless of their background. You cannot solve injustices on a one-to-one basis. Just because John Q doesn't get a job because of his race, it does not make sense to let Judy S into college partially based on her race. This is a band-aid solution and an ugly one at that. Black people don't need extra help. What they need is everyone collectively to get their heads out of their asses about race issues and not fix racist problems with racist policy. And changing people's minds by forcing their hand with policy does not have a good track record of success...
It's a somewhat silly comparison, but ugly people have a statistically significantly more difficult time getting jobs and equal salaries and promotions. Maybe there should be a government appointed worker to judge every applicant's attractiveness and give them points based on how low they fall on the scale. Injustices happen all the time. I am much more interested in talking to people and changing ideas than I am trying to give artificial advantages to those that society deems oppressed.
Libertarians say that want "minimal government", and I'm sure they believe they do. But frankly, I think such a concept is so abstract as to lack virtually any connection to everyday realities. "Minimal government" for a boss, for example, means maximum governments for that boss's workers when they try to form a union. When Libertarians say they want "minimal government", they really mean that they want minimal government for themselves -- largely meaning the white, male, urban middle class.
So, while Libertarians' and Klansmens' opposition to affirmative action might be superficially different, they're essentially the same. Libertarian opposition to affirmative action amounts to a refusal to apply to historically oppressed people the same standard they would apply to anyone else: the principle that people should be compensated for wrongs committed against them.
To try and justify this inconsistency, Libertarians have to fall back on justifications amounting to blatant racism. I would bet a lot of money that a survey of U.S. Libertarians would find that a statistically significant amount believe in innate racial differences in intelligence.
Furthermore, visit some of the white supremacist sites out there. I think you'll find that many of them don't claim to hate Black people, but utilize rhetoric about "reverse discrimination", "quotas", etc. that's fairly mainstream.
More later.
In the end I'll say this about that clip .... don't you just wanna throw yer wang in that bitch's mouth everytime she talks just to get her to shut up ? I mean that voice kills !
HAHAHA!! dude, doesnt she sound like camel trying to cough up a bone? haha
So, while Libertarians' and Klansmens' opposition to affirmative action might be superficially different, they're essentially the same. Libertarian opposition to affirmative action amounts to a refusal to apply to historically oppressed people the same standard they would apply to anyone else: the principle that people should be compensated for wrongs committed against them.
To try and justify this inconsistency, Libertarians have to fall back on justifications amounting to blatant racism. I would bet a lot of money that a survey of U.S. Libertarians would find that a statistically significant amount believe in innate racial differences in intelligence.
Furthermore, visit some of the white supremacist sites out there. I think you'll find that many of them don't claim to hate Black people, but utilize rhetoric about "reverse discrimination", "quotas", etc. that's fairly mainstream.
More later.
---------------
I think your ideas about minimal government are way off. For a good discussion of the topic from a purely philosophical standpoint, check out "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Nozick. He presents and justifies a model for a minimal government that I feel doesn't fall into your category of minimal government for the individual.
I agree with you that people should be compensated for wrongs committed against them, but that is not what affirmative action does. Were minorities discriminated against in the past? Sure. Is there still continued racism today? Of course. But I'll never see how this logically adds up to unilaterally giving minority groups favoritism. Compensation for a wrong would be awarding damages to someone who didn't get a position because of their race. But how is it just awarding merit based on race when it is possible that no discrimination whatsoever has ever happened to this individual? And you seem to ignore, that though far more uncommon because of the power structure in America, racism can happen to majority groups too. Should this injustice be any less compensated just because it is more uncommon? Your way of thinking still classifies people primarily based on race instead of seeing them as an individual with unique experiences. And I believe that that kind of thinking will never lead to long term progress in eliminating racism and changing people's minds.
And as far as your unproven claims about a statistically significant number of Libertarians believing in innate racial intelligence differences -- I would guess that if it's true for Libertarians, it's true for almost any group. But in either case, it's irrelevant. Just because a subset of a group of people believe stupid things, it in no way invalidates the pure philosophy behind it (a philosophy which many of the so-called members of the group may be partially or totally ignorant of as well).
I believe in personal responsibility and legislating compensation only on a case-to-case basis where damage actually occurred. Striving for true equality is not racist. Blinding throwing money at black people because of their race, on the other hand, is racist.
But my point was to say they are such small numbers as are KKK people (no more tVan a few thousand in a nation of hundreds of millions)
That's true. I would agree that the KKK (any of them), as an organization, is pretty insignificant.
However, the rhetoric of KKK-like groups has been widely influential on the Right. And while the KKK itself has certainly lost credibility, there are other racist groups now that have more, like the Council of Conservative Citizens (which has an audience with prominent Republican Congressmen) and American Renaissance.
It depends. In England, for example, you could justifiably utter the names of some Labour Party MPs and some Marxists in the same sentence.
In the U.S., the story is much different. While American liberalism lacks any continuity with even mild forms of socialism (which tend, at the very least, to place trade unions at their foundation, not just (as the Democrats) as one "interest group" among many), American conservatism has significant ties to the ultra-Right. The most obvious thing to point out is that most all of the Southern Democrats became Republicans.
In other words: the political mainstream as a whole in the U.S. is well to the Right of that found in all other democracies.
But the Left and the ultra-Right mean different things when they talk about "capitalism". The Left means an economic system ruled by the profit motive, typically characterized by wage labor, markets, private property and competition. The Right means just a concentration of wealth. Consequently, the Left favors nationalization under workers' control, while the Right favors basically a nation of small business owners. Not so different from Nazism (which, after all, stood for "National Socialism"), which was itself largely a movement of small property owners.
Absolutely right. Which is why they need to be addressed in terms of social realities like race, gender and class.
It does insofar as John Q's not getting the job negatively impact Judy S's chances of getting into college.
It is a band-aid solution. But I don't of anyone who thinks that affirmative action will single-handedly sweep away racism. It's necessary, but not sufficient.
First of all, I'm not sure it's the place of any white person to tell black folks what they "need" to be doing. And as I argued against Berto, affirmative action isn't racist by any reasonable definition of the term.
One thing you have to understand is that affirmative action didn't fall from the sky. It wasn't the creation of well-intentioned liberals. It was a concession that was specifically demanded by blacks, who achieved it through collective political action. It was supported by MLK, whose Operation Breadbasket was the precursor to the program, using boycotts rather than gov't action to encourage hiring of blacks. Affirmative action is the institutionalization of self-help, not charity.
And you're contradicting yourself here. On one hand, you're saying the problem of racism can't be solved on an individual basis. On the other, you seem to be advocating -- as an alternative to affirmative action -- that blacks simply convince people, one by one, not to be racist anymore.
But the above approach ignores the fact that social problems have social and historical origins. The cultural and material heritage of slavery and Jim Crow is part of it; economic competition, with employers attempting to play whites off against blacks by granting them small privileges.
There are a few grounds on which this comparison could be rejected, I'll stick with this one: the economic impact on one generation of ugly people doesn't necessarily have any affect on those that follow it. Attractive people have ugly kids, and vice-versa.
If you're going to dismiss an attempt to remedy some of the effects of racism with the excuse that "injustices happen all the time", then logically, you must also think that the efforts to gain U.S. independence, end slavery, and grant women the right to vote were all wastes of time. No one who lives in the real world can dismiss solutions just because they're partial and imperfect.
Society doesn't "deem" blacks oppressed. Disproportionate incarceration and unemployment are not just figments of the imagination. And you can't change ideas without also acting to change the social environment that fosters them.
Also, note that by designating affirmative action's benefits "artificial", you assume that white privilege is "natural".
That book was so thoroughly refuted that Nozick himself later abandoned the arguments he made in it. Of the many responses to it, my personal favorite is G.A. Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality.
Non-whites are at a disadvantage as a group relative to whites as a group. That doesn't mean, of course, that all whites are better off than all blacks. It means that most whites are better off than most blacks, and that individual whites tend to better off than individual blacks of the same class, gender, etc.
This disadvantage results from both historical and current discrimination. Every non-white person in this country has less opportunity than they would have if their ancestors hadn't been enslaved or colonized. Every non-white person in this country does, at some point, experience racial discrimination in a significant way. Not all of them experience or have experienced it to the same degree, it's true. But the degree to which they have is impossible to quantify, and anyway would be not entirely appropriate as a requirement: typically, in class action suits, compensation is distributed equally, regardless of individual damages.
More later.
Prior to some time after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, most enterprises could get away with blatantly discirminating against non-whites. If we count the period from the end of slavery to the enforcement of the Civil Righs act, that's about a century. This has set back non-whites in countless ways, most obviously in a lack of wealth. Don't they deserve compensation for at least this period? And if so, wouldn't you prefer this compensation take the form of affirmative action, rather than more costly options?
Affirmative action recognizes that people have been (and are) disadvantaged due to race as well as class. The average poor white still has advantages relative to the average poor black, due to historical and continuing discrimination against blacks. I support both class- and race-based affirmative action. They're not mutually exclusive.
The idea that affirmative action promotes racism relies on a misrepresentation of what affirmative action actually is. There's absolutely nothing in any affirmative action law that requires employers to hire anyone who's anything less than qualified for a position. So frankly, no one who's not eager to promulgate racist lies in the first place would be inspired to racism by affirmative action.
And who, exactly, assumes such a thing? If this is taken to be the motivation underlying affirmative action (which it isn't, as I'll explain later), then why do most "minorities" support it? And why isn't this same standard applied to whites, who -- rather than being expected to "stand on their own two feet" -- are granted all sorts of advantages in American society?
That's the crux of the matter, really. Truth be known, all things being equal, I oppose affirmative action. But all things are not equal: affirmative action for whites exists (even if it's not formally legislated), and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not affirmative action for none-whites disappears. So until affirmative action for whites is done away with, justice demands that we consciously maintain it for non-whites as well.
Joined: 2005-09-13