I think all pro-race organizations are questionable, and in troubled waters. It doesn't even matter to me who they support.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Misappropriation of the word 'racist' used against Trump
- Thread starter Mindmaster
- Start date
I think all pro-race organizations are questionable, and in troubled waters. It doesn't even matter to me who they support.
Or why. So you equate defending the marginalized and oppressed with defending the rights of the oppressors. It's a sophomoric false equivalence worthy of a Trump defender.
His arguments in The Bell Curve were premised on a number of assumptions that cannot be justified.
And many sexists are married to the opposite sex. Your point being? Murray argues that black people and Latinos are mentally inferior to whites and East Asians.
"But the rest of its 800 pages are devoted to arguing that blacks and Latinos have lower IQ than Asians and whites (whites are inferior to Asians, by the way); that IQ is largely (though not exclusively) hereditary; that lower IQ means these groups are more likely to commit crime and drop out of school and have illegitimate (and lower IQ) babies and live in poverty, and that there’s not much to do to help those groups rise. In fact, Murray and Herrnstein argued, American welfare policies that provide aid to women with children “inadvertently social-engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women.”
When you’ve spent an entire book arguing that blacks and Latinos have lower IQs, more out-of-wedlock babies and higher reliance on welfare, it’s clear who “the wrong women” are. Oh, and the book also argued for limiting immigration, because unlike earlier waves of immigrants, today’s are coming from countries with a lower national IQ. In what world are those arguments not racist?
Now, Ryan may argue that he was thinking about Murray’s earlier discredited work, “Losing Ground,” which argued that poverty, especially among black families, was due to their propensity to have babies outside of marriage, shun work and rely on welfare. But that book, too, relied on racial stereotyping and was discredited by rigorous research, so Ryan doesn’t get himself out of trouble if he cites “Losing Ground.”
As I argued last week, Ryan (and Murray’s) best potential argument that they’re not racist is to promote the conclusions of Murray’s last book, “Coming Apart: The State of White American 1960-2010,” in which he sadly concludes that rising poverty among whites is due to their sharing the cultural habits he once attributed mainly to blacks, mainly single motherhood and shiftlessness. But like all of Murray’s work, “Coming Apart” is shot through with genetic fatalism, that lower IQ people are on balance lazier, more promiscuous and more crime prone, and that social policy that seeks to help them only encourages them to reproduce, worsening our problems.
Perversely, there’s only one social policy intervention Murray wholeheartedly supports, and that’s easier access to effective contraception. Which helps explain why right-wing culture warriors get to claim contraception is a form of eugenics, because for people like Charles Murray, it is.
Learning from the flap over “The Bell Curve,” Murray now insists IQ is “intractable” – he no longer uses the words “genetic” or “innate,” though he still emphasizes that it’s largely hereditary. And he continues to argue that the ways we decide to structure society and create opportunity can’t make a difference. I come from a group of people, Irish Catholics, whose median IQ has climbed as the opportunities provided to us increased as well. Murray is wrong. IQ is not destiny."
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/paul_krugman_demolishes_charles_murrays_stunning_racist_dishonesty/
Murray is a racist, yes, and he also promotes what is really just eugenics, which is what his calls for limiting immigration are really about. He is "libertarian" in that he wants the government to drastically cut welfare spending because it's going to "the wrong people" in his eyes and "those people" cannot be helped because ultimately the problem is their genes.
So he's making a lot of claims that really outside of the bounds of mere political science. Either way, his works are not scientific. They're ideological.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said?I mean, you realize political media is mostly entertainment right?There is more entertainment on the right side, at least as far as the variety. I'm pretty critical of these guys myself, but they don't use the same tactics as the liberals. Conservatives like to pump it a bit and grandstand, the liberals like to strawman and lie. I don't know which is worse..
Well, yeah.
Milo is a token minority lackey who is being used as a prop by some who want to appear "diverse". If they're ever successful, they'd do away with him, too, because they'll never really accept a gay man, especially an effeminate loudmouthed queen with a fetish for black men. He's also of Jewish heritage, so that's another strike against him.
If we were having this discussion about sixty years ago I'd probably see a point, but it's like all things once you become pro-race you become anti-every other race. I think it's really stupid to repeat something we know doesn't work. No, these organizations are about hoodwinking, swindling, and stealing money away from people and creating drama. Most of their victims are poor people, so I have moral problems with it. These groups aren't about anything but fleecing people to solve problems that no longer exist.
Nah, I prefer my little world where all racists are equally undesirable and support rewards through merit, not color.
Who knows, but all I do know is the liberal colleges use his data or at least seem to have come to the same conclusions. They aren't aligned with conservatives, and they aren't about racist agendas.
There are actually a crap ton of neocons that are completely 100% behind gay rights, etc. Gays are present everywhere outside of the Christian fundies these days. Again, the Republicans are more like this thread. You got a ton of people in the room that agree on nothing but the idea that racism is bad.
There is really no over-reaching position on anything other than the content that is in the platform document. The rest of the Republicans (even from the extreme wings) are shifting toward more moderate social positions. They're really not as strong on immigration as they are on sovereignty, nationalism, and liberty. Sure, there are some outliers mostly in the paleocon camp but they hardly speak for the bulk of the Republicans. It's just not like the old days, the pre-Obama Republican party isn't the same beast as what is there now. They got beaten soundly a couple of times and decided their old ways were not going to win elections. I think it's good that they are trying to change.As far as Trumpcons, I probably only actually watch Gavin McInnes. He's pretty damn amusing, and the only reason I don't think the Republicans are completely worthless. I'll watch Bill Maher when he's not having a strawman rant, or CNN. I'm not really beholden to any particular media outlet. I just sort of change it up because I don't want to be steered.
You mean your little world where you equate La Raza with the still active KKK and offer yours services as a Trump apologist. Good luck with that.
Yes, if this idea were to be applied to an individual it would definitely be racist. Each individual person must be judged based on their own character and abilities. To prejudge them based on their race is the very definition of racism.
Just for a moment lets assume that it is true (not that I believe it is) that people of Asian heritage (btw if it is genetic it would be Asians, not just Asian-Americans) have a genetic make up that makes them excel in math. Even if this were true this would represent a group average, there still would be individuals within that group who do not excel in mathematics. So if you make an assumption that one specific individual is better at math than another specific individual based on race, that is would still be racism.
Both organizations are about race, and I'm terrible because I despise both? Man, you are strange.
Hmm, I agree with Trumps platform but don't like him personally. Have you ever read his platform positions?
I don't know which colleges use his books or in which circumstances. You'd have to clarify. His books have been largely debunked and aren't held in high esteem.
Yeah, I know there's different sorts of conservatives and libertarians under the Republican umbrella. But with Milo, I'm referring to the alt-right, which is basically a far-right populist movement that is the American version of the European "new right". It's racist and sexist. It's made up of white nationalists, anti-feminists, neoreactionaries, etc. Bashing gays isn't as high on its agenda right now, because they're mostly concerned with freaking out over Muslims, black people and Latinos. Still, their "acceptance" of gays appears to be tenuous at best as they still promote macho attitudes, shame femininity and effeminacy and want whites to have lots of babies. So ultimately Milo is really just a means to an end. In the same way, there have been alliances forged between far-right anti-Muslim groups and right-wing Jews. The white far-rightists have put their antisemitism on the back burner for now, but it's hardly disappeared. They're shaking hands while holding a knife behind their back. This isn't something new. It's merely an alliance of convenience.There are actually a crap ton of neocons that are completely 100% behind gay rights, etc. Gays are present everywhere outside of the Christian fundies these days. Again, the Republicans are more like this thread. You got a ton of people in the room that agree on nothing but the idea that racism is bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
Gavin's amusing in a train wreck sort of way. He's a stupid trog. I'm no fan of Bill Maher, either.
I was not really getting into the endless issue of whether the view is right or wrong. What I was asking was; 'given' that is the person's confirmed belief, 'is he a racist?'. And I take it that your answer is 'Yes'.
Now if person objectively considers all the data and arguments and does believe the above to be true but agrees with everything else you said in your post, does that make him a 'racist' (with the connotation of evil that comes with the word)?
No, just ignorant. Raciest are always ignorant, but the ignorant are not always racist.
I will say however that I find that raciest tend to jump on board with theories like this one whereas reasonable people tend to be much more cautious.
Trump says his words are being misconstrued. That he does not think this judge is biased because of his heritage but because of his past rulings indicate it and because the judge has associations that are strongly pro-Mexican.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/trump-university-judge.html?_r=0
Didn't he say to the Samaritan woman that she was no better than a dog?
Conservatives, en masse, don't call liberals Fascists, SOME Conservatives may do that. Pray, do no paint with such a broad brush.
Also you are incorrect in "knowing" that Fascism is a right-wing ideology. It is neither right-wing nor left-wing and either side of the spectrum can be Fascist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Read the whole story before making such a judgment.
tytlyf
Not Religious
I'd say it's definitely leaning on the right wing side. It's a nationalistic ideology and against democracy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fascism
Wrong. Fascism is far-right. I'm referring to actual Fascism, by the way, not whatever generic totalitarian phantom you have in mind. I used to be a Fascist and I've studied and thought about this extensively.