tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post8424544005165594805..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Loyalties: Boyish concentric conservatives v. adolescent leapfrogging liberalsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57040338021746115612012-06-04T06:48:39.298-07:002012-06-04T06:48:39.298-07:00"Every bureaucrat enforcing segregation has b...<i>"Every bureaucrat enforcing segregation has been replaced by three enforcing integration, the segregation red tape by three times as much integration red tape. Same goes for levels of waste, time wasted, etc. Equal treatment under the law doesn't enter into it."<br /><br />Besides your own opinion, what credible evidence do you have to offer that your "three plus bureaucrat" numbers indeed replaced the enforcers of segregation at state, local and national levels, in both the north and south, over the span of over 100 years? What were these numbers to begin with, and how many replaced them? Just taking one example, how many "integration police" today replaced 100 years worth of white conductors, stewards, supervisors, ticket clerks, and security guards that enforced segregation in government regulated railway transport? 100? 1000? Do tell...</i><br /><br />Integration, civil rights laws, and similar legislation, are federal laws enforced by massive federal bureaucracies. Segregation was limited to (relatively poor) state governments (largely) in the American SE. The size and scope (and budget) of the federal government has grown markedly since the Jim Crow days. It's not hard to take an educated guess as to who's spent more blood and treasure.<br /><br />But to answer your question, so far I've got as much credible evidence as you do for the assertion you made, and I responded to.<br /><br /><i>And how does "equal treatment" NOT enter into such laws as requiring voting registrars to register people regardless of race, or requiring clerks granting building permits to do so regardless of race?</i><br /><br />I've restricted myself to positions on the private sector for a reason.<br /><br /><i>You appear to have both reading comprehension and logic problems. Who said or says the sale of a private house is "public accommodation"? DO you see anything mentioning private housing sales in the snippet you chose above? Focus and come up with a better analysis. Raise your game.</i><br /><br />He did the same thing you did, and you're at least as guilty of doing what you're accusing him of.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71027741614520731462012-06-04T06:47:27.887-07:002012-06-04T06:47:27.887-07:00"And all Americans are victims here, not just...<i>"And all Americans are victims here, not just Whites."<br /><br />Your logic is rather thin. How does a black guy exercising his right to vote, unharassed by violent intimidation or bogus requirements imposed because he is black, a "victim" of civil rights laws that guarantee his liberty to do so? How is a Jewish guy a "victim" of laws that says you can't refuse to give him a business license because he is Jewish?</i><br /><br />My logic is self-evident. The black guy who wants to have a black business, hire only blacks, serve only blacks, etc., is harmed by these laws because he's forced to use his property in a way that makes TPTB happy, and himself unhappy. His right to property and pursuit of happiness (as long as they doesn't infringe upon or violate others' rights) are being trampled in the name of "the right" to pursue happiness by infringing others' rights. The black guy who doesn't want to do any of these things is harmed by these laws in the same way a man who can't afford a gun is harmed by the deterioration of the right to bear arms, the way a man who's taken a vow of silence is harmed by the erosion of the right to free speech, etc.<br /><br /><i>"And yes, Free Association is destroyed when people are prevented by law from choosing not to associate. Common sense, 101."<br /><br />Laws restrict free association all the time. Adults for example may not "freely associate" with children in school district showers. Likewise laws forbid civilians armed with automatic rifles from "freely associating" at the entrance ways to military bases (or trespass on private property) without authorization. </i><br /><br />Laws that restrict freedom of association in a good way, a justifiable way, are categorically different from laws that restrict one man's freedom in order to advantage another man. School showers are government property, so yes, I think the government has the right to set the rules on its turf. Similarly, a private citizen should get to decide who showers on his property, and how. Laws forbidding intimidation with rightfully-owned firearms are protecting other citizens from coercion and intimidation on the part of the arms-bearers. These "civil rights" laws forbidding Americans from choosing their associates, their employees, or how to dispose of their property, are doing the opposite; they are coercing people, not preventing coercion.<br /><br />By the way, shouldn't those government showers be co-ed? Not separate but equal? I mean, Jim Crow laws are a bit 19th century, aren't they?<br /><br /><i>But more specifically, we are talking the CRA of 1964 which you or someone alleged "outlawed" freedom of association. How? Specify concrete examples, and specify whether said examples represent outlawing of free association or whether they represent something else.</i><br /><br />Nope, I'm discussing civil rights laws as a body. I made this perfectly clear in my first sentence. If you didn't want to argue with me, you shouldn't have.<br /><br />And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. This is not "Educate Grover" day, and I'm not particularly interested in studying the minutiae of the law.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18853508915757834972012-06-04T06:45:38.987-07:002012-06-04T06:45:38.987-07:00"'Civil Rights' (Rights Abrogation) a...<i>"'Civil Rights' (Rights Abrogation) and 'anti-discrimination' (Anti-Freedom) laws, 1965 or no, amount to an assault on freedom."<br /><br />The fact that a black guy is now free to vote or obtain a zoning permit regardless of race is now an "assault on freedom"? This is Orwellian reasoning indeed, better than any leftie commissar could conjure up.</i><br /><br />I like how you're wielding "leftie commissar" as a weapon, as if you're not a lefty. Cute.<br /><br />But your tactic of cherry-picking one aspect of "civil rights" (one I had not objected to), pretending it's the only aspect of "civil rights," and then pretending it was what I was objecting to, is pretty weak. Anemic, really.<br /><br /><i>"A giant step backward in terms of liberty (in the name of Liberty, of course). They are not minor tweaks, and they certainly don't just affect public accommodations (not that they'd be minor if that's all they did, mind)."<br /><br />How is the black guy voting or eating his hamburger in peace two tables down "a giant step backward in terms of liberty?"</i><br /><br />Telling people they don't get to choose who they do business with is a giant step backward for Liberty. It's like "freedom of inoffensive speech," or "freedom to choose a Tolerant religion," or "the right to bear non-assault arms"; a neutered right.<br /><br />First they came for the anti-Semites, and I didn't speak out.<br />Then they came for the racists, and I didn't speak out.<br />Then they came for the conservatives, and I didn't speak out.<br />Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.<br /><br /><i>This seems quite melodramatic.</i><br /><br />But your paeans about poor darkies eating their hamburgers in peace are cold logic personified.<br /><br /><i>Don;t you really mean that you think the black guy should NOT be free do do these things?</i><br /><br />Yes; I do not think the black guy should be able to demand (backed by the federal government) service from the poor guy making his hamburgers in peace while working on his physics degree and caring for his sick grandma.<br /><br /><i>Just come right out and admit it. You want "liberty" only for CERTAIN white people, as it suits you, not liberty for other Americans to carry out their lives as they see fit, equally treated under the law. This is your bottom line.</i><br /><br />Wrong; I advocate the same rights for every citizen.<br /><br /><i>"How one forms neighborhoods, communities, businesses and institutions is central to life."<br /><br />Sure</i><br /><br />So, I wasn't being melodramatic.<br /><br /><i>and laws are one key central structure that forms the above. None of your "neighborhoods, communities, businesses and institutions" would exist in modern life were it not for laws that restrict the liberty of the people they govern. Show me a society with laws that do not restrict freedom of association and "liberty." We'll wait...</i><br /><br />And the test for a justifiable restriction is whether it preserves liberty, or harms it. The "freedom" to murder people, break into their homes, etc., harms liberty. Laws protecting your right to decide for yourself how you dispose of your property, with whom you make contracts, or with whom you associate - these things all preserve liberty.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24939620896987519802012-06-03T16:28:29.510-07:002012-06-03T16:28:29.510-07:00^^Dubious. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated n...<b>^^Dubious. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated non discrimination in public accomodations and elsewhere. It did not forbid white racists or non-racists from freely associating with one another. They could and can associate only with other whites to their hearts content- they just can't discriminate on the basis of race when providing accommodations to the public. All laws or rules restrict humans in some way- Life 101."<br /><br />The only thing dubious is your reasoning (and your flippant Snopes-like arrogance). How is the sale of a private house the provision of a public accomodation? </b><br /><br />You appear to have both reading comprehension and logic problems. Who said or says the sale of a private house is "public accommodation"? DO you see anything mentioning private housing sales in the snippet you chose above? Focus and come up with a better analysis. Raise your game.Grover Proslingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30597702514883049302012-06-03T16:24:59.435-07:002012-06-03T16:24:59.435-07:00"Civil Rights" (Rights Abrogation) and &...<b>"Civil Rights" (Rights Abrogation) and "anti-discrimination" (Anti-Freedom) laws, 1965 or no, amount to an assault on freedom.</b><br /><br />The fact that a black guy is now free to vote or obtain a zoning permit regardless of race is now an "assault on freedom"? This is Orwellian reasoning indeed, better than any leftie commissar could conjure up.<br /><br /><br /><b> A giant step backward in terms of liberty (in the name of Liberty, of course). They are not minor tweaks, and they certainly don't just affect public accommodations (not that they'd be minor if that's all they did, mind). </b><br /><br />How is the black guy voting or eating his hamburger in peace two tables down "a giant step backward in terms of liberty?" This seems quite melodramatic. Don;t you really mean that you think the black guy should NOT be free do do these things? Just come right out and admit it. You want "liberty" only for CERTAIN white people, as it suits you, not liberty for other Americans to carry out their lives as they see fit, equally treated under the law. This is your bottom line. <br /><br /><br /><b>How one forms neighborhoods, communities, businesses and institutions is central to life.</b><br /><br />Sure, and laws are one key central structure that forms the above. None of your "neighborhoods, communities, businesses and institutions" would exist in modern life were it not for laws that restrict the liberty of the people they govern. Show me a society with laws that do not restrict freedom of association and "liberty." We'll wait...<br /><br /><br /><b>And all Americans are victims here, not just Whites.</b><br /><br />Your logic is rather thin. How does a black guy exercising his right to vote, unharassed by violent intimidation or bogus requirements imposed because he is black, a "victim" of civil rights laws that guarantee his liberty to do so? How is a Jewish guy a "victim" of laws that says you can't refuse to give him a business license because he is Jewish? <br /><br /><br /><b>And yes, Free Association is destroyed when people are prevented by law from choosing not to associate. Common sense, 101.</b><br /><br />Laws restrict free association all the time. Adults for example may not "freely associate" with children in school district showers. Likewise laws forbid civilians armed with automatic rifles from "freely associating" at the entrance ways to military bases (or trespass on private property) without authorization. But more specifically, we are talking the CRA of 1964 which you or someone alleged "outlawed" freedom of association. How? Specify concrete examples, and specify whether said examples represent outlawing of free association or whether they represent something else. <br /><br /><br /><b>Every bureaucrat enforcing segregation has been replaced by three enforcing integration, the segregation red tape by three times as much integration red tape. Same goes for levels of waste, time wasted, etc. Equal treatment under the law doesn't enter into it. </b><br /><br />Besides your own opinion, what credible evidence do you have to offer that your "three plus bureaucrat" numbers indeed replaced the enforcers of segregation at state, local and national levels, in both the north and south, over the span of over 100 years? What were these numbers to begin with, and how many replaced them? Just taking one example, how many "integration police" today replaced 100 years worth of white conductors, stewards, supervisors, ticket clerks, and security guards that enforced segregation in government regulated railway transport? 100? 1000? Do tell...<br /><br />And how does "equal treatment" NOT enter into such laws as requiring voting registrars to register people regardless of race, or requiring clerks granting building permits to do so regardless of race?Grover Proslingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81627773125710282462012-06-03T12:58:23.448-07:002012-06-03T12:58:23.448-07:00"Grover Prosling said...
^^Dubious. The Civi..."Grover Prosling said...<br /><br />^^Dubious. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated non discrimination in public accomodations and elsewhere. It did not forbid white racists or non-racists from freely associating with one another. They could and can associate only with other whites to their hearts content- they just can't discriminate on the basis of race when providing accommodations to the public. All laws or rules restrict humans in some way- Life 101."<br /><br />The only thing dubious is your reasoning (and your flippant Snopes-like arrogance). How is the sale of a private house the provision of a public accomodation?Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24982226647823953782012-06-03T00:01:20.523-07:002012-06-03T00:01:20.523-07:00"A conservative free-marketer"
A contra..."A conservative free-marketer"<br /><br />A contradiction in terms, I'm afraid.Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34046106349066962942012-06-02T23:56:51.155-07:002012-06-02T23:56:51.155-07:00"All laws or rules restrict humans in some wa..."All laws or rules restrict humans in some way"<br /><br />Welp, time to end all debate on politics and governance. This guy here sez all laws or rules restrict humans (humans, mind you) "in some way". In light of that it seems foolish to call into question any law that restricts people--they all do! Thanks for the helpful tip, my friend.Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21227134981762744242012-06-02T21:35:10.633-07:002012-06-02T21:35:10.633-07:00But it could be well said for the CRA that some pr...<i>But it could be well said for the CRA that some provisions such as removing discrimination in public accommodations had a quite POSITIVE effect - better US foreign diplomacy efforts, increased income from more free market transactions, removal of huge levels of waste caused by the need to produce duplicate segregated facilities for "colored" citizens, reduction of time wasted by business employees policing who is "colored" or not and/or confronting said "colored people" who failed to respect Jim Crow laws, and elimination of layers of racial bureaucracy and practices to enforce said laws. Another positive benefit was that large parts of white America could actually begin imlementing the equal treatment under the law thing it always talked about.</i><br /><br />Now you're just off in la-la land. Every bureaucrat enforcing segregation has been replaced by three enforcing integration, the segregation red tape by three times as much integration red tape. Same goes for levels of waste, time wasted, etc.<br /><br />Equal treatment under the law doesn't enter into it.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-47188312997008023342012-06-02T21:30:13.438-07:002012-06-02T21:30:13.438-07:00"Civil Rights" (Rights Abrogation) and &..."Civil Rights" (Rights Abrogation) and "anti-discrimination" (Anti-Freedom) laws, 1965 or no, amount to an assault on freedom. A giant step backward in terms of liberty (in the name of Liberty, of course). They are not minor tweaks, and they certainly don't just affect public accommodations (not that they'd be minor if that's all they did, mind). How one forms neighborhoods, communities, businesses and institutions is central to life.<br /><br />And yes, Free Association is destroyed when people are prevented by law from choosing not to associate. Common sense, 101.<br /><br />And all Americans are victims here, not just Whites.Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1458092918073813232012-06-02T21:21:52.824-07:002012-06-02T21:21:52.824-07:00^^Dubious. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated n...<i>^^Dubious. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated non discrimination in public accomodations and elsewhere. It did not forbid white racists or non-racists from freely associating with one another. They could and can associate only with other whites to their hearts content- they just can't discriminate on the basis of race when providing accommodations to the public. All laws or rules restrict humans in some way- Life 101.</i><br /><br />What's next, Cap'n Verbose? You gonna piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'?Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36020416506458394862012-06-02T17:41:39.440-07:002012-06-02T17:41:39.440-07:00I think Obama's election has ushered in a wave...<b> I think Obama's election has ushered in a wave of miscegnation among young people. </b><br /><br />There may be more VISIBILITY with interracial couples, but overall there is really no "wave of miscegnation" ushered in by Obama. B/W marriages for example remain minor- less than one half of one percent of all marriages- hardly a wave, more like a trivial ripple..<br /><br /><br /><b>The bottom line is US policy should be set according to the interests of Americans, not in response to foreign propaganda. </b><br /><br />^^And civil rights policy was set according to the interests of all Americans, not foreigners. Said policy has been important in the history of the US and was around in America since the 1800s, long before evil communists in the Soviet Union appeared to allegedly "set" such policies.<br /><br /><br /><b>The 1964 Act outlawed freedom of association, with costly and negative consequences for Americans. </b><br /><br />^^Dubious. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated non discrimination in public accomodations and elsewhere. It did not forbid white racists or non-racists from freely associating with one another. They could and can associate only with other whites to their hearts content- they just can't discriminate on the basis of race when providing accommodations to the public. All laws or rules restrict humans in some way- Life 101. <br /><br />The CRA did not forbid white racists from creating private clubs and other institutions to associate with fellow racists- nor does it forbid white non-racists from implementing things such as zoning controls that keeps out the type of housing that certain "other groups" might use (a white liberal favorite). And in fact, numerous whites have done just that. <br /><br />SO how exactly is freedom of association "outlawed" and is there a constitutional right somewhere that says you get to pick choose who goes into Walmart with you? I mean if people don't want "evil Jews" to be in the same store with them fine, but since when are they entitled to this preference for pure Aryan stocks as a "constitutional right"?<br /><br />As for alleged "costly and negative consequences" - ok but specify by whose definition- white racists? or some other nicer folk? All laws have consequences and costs- the CRA of 1964 is no different - and actions subsequent to laws by bureaucrats and judges always shape outcomes. New Deal legislation by the white Roosevelt Admin for example had deleterious effects on blacks at the implementation end in some cases, while benefitting whites handsomely. FOr example "white only" quotas in some New Deal programs were embraced by southern whites with the specific understanding that they would benefit and not blacks. In program after program, blacks were systematically cut out of the loop and sidelined, while whites pocketed the benefits and filled white racial quotas. See Ira Katznelson's book: WHen Affirmative Action Was White, for some eye-opening detail on white quotas.<br /><br />But it could be well said for the CRA that some provisions such as removing discrimination in public accommodations had a quite POSITIVE effect - better US foreign diplomacy efforts, increased income from more free market transactions, removal of huge levels of waste caused by the need to produce duplicate segregated facilities for "colored" citizens, reduction of time wasted by business employees policing who is "colored" or not and/or confronting said "colored people" who failed to respect Jim Crow laws, and elimination of layers of racial bureaucracy and practices to enforce said laws. Another positive benefit was that large parts of white America could actually begin imlementing the equal treatment under the law thing it always talked about. <br /><br />You need to sharpen up your analysis. Can you elucidate on these alleged costly and negative consequences for Americans due to the putative outlawing of free association by the CRA of 1964?Grover Proslingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87592416271314879922012-06-02T14:20:58.319-07:002012-06-02T14:20:58.319-07:00totally unrelated but I think Obama's election...<i>totally unrelated but I think Obama's election has ushered in a wave of miscegnation among young people. it's funny. i'd like to hear steve write on how that will work out. how large the mixed (cory booker/obama) segment of the US be in the future.</i><br /><br />Obama is an awesome marketing tool for interracial dating:<br /><br />"Get pregnant by a black man and your child can get into Harvard Law and even become president of the most powerful country on the planet."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43251491992607064732012-06-02T09:48:17.928-07:002012-06-02T09:48:17.928-07:00To demand inclusion while reserving the right to e...<i>To demand inclusion while reserving the right to exclude is a pretty common, not to say universal, human propensity. You don't make an appeal to universalist principles to a people who aren't susceptible to such appeals.</i><br /><br />The Scots Irish strategy in a nutshell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77454287141395003252012-06-02T07:24:56.696-07:002012-06-02T07:24:56.696-07:00Yan Shen sez:
Anon sez:
Ah, yes, it makes so much ...Yan Shen sez:<br /><i>Anon sez:<br /><b>Ah, yes, it makes so much sense to let our enemies set our domestic policy.</b><br />^^You must be living in some alternative fantasy world. The Soviet Union did not "set" US domestic policy. Since when is ensuring equal opportunity under the law a "Soviet plot"? Is the 14th Amendment a "communist plot?" Lets join the real world shall we.. And Civil Rights policy has been around since the 1800s, long before the SOviet Union appeared to allegedly "set" US domestic policy. </i><br /><br />The bottom line is US policy should be set according to the interests of Americans, not in response to foreign propaganda. The 1964 Act outlawed freedom of association, with costly and negative consequences for Americans. <br /><br />Now the Red Chinese want American citizens disarmed. Should we listen to them too, Yan Shen?<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/china-condemns-u-s-gun-ownership-as-human-rights-violation" rel="nofollow">A report</a> issued by the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China has included U.S. gun ownership among a list of human rights violations... <br /><br />Left unsaid is the inconvenient truth that rendering captive populations unable to resist makes such monstrous crimes against humanity not only possible, but inevitable.<br /><br />Also left unquestioned: What is the motivation and agenda of any American who advocates Chicom-style citizen disarmament, knowing full-well its blood-drenched historic record?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53158049573781602552012-06-02T06:33:23.183-07:002012-06-02T06:33:23.183-07:00"Mercer said...
Anyone who really loved Virgi..."Mercer said...<br />Anyone who really loved Virginia would not live in NY City unless they had to which Wolfe does not. I don't see much Scotch-Irish in Wolfe. Jim Webb is much more in that mold."<br /><br />And they both married "out"- Wolfe to a Jewish woman, and Webb to a Vietnamese one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23329485453235057812012-06-02T03:56:10.701-07:002012-06-02T03:56:10.701-07:00totally unrelated but I think Obama's election...totally unrelated but I think Obama's election has ushered in a wave of miscegnation among young people. it's funny. i'd like to hear steve write on how that will work out. how large the mixed (cory booker/obama) segment of the US be in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28506007323821043782012-06-02T02:35:46.365-07:002012-06-02T02:35:46.365-07:00Sailer adds an interesting insight to Haidt's ...Sailer adds an interesting insight to Haidt's book (which I recommend every conservative read). The idea of concentric vs. leapfrogging associations deserves a longer treatment. How about it, Steve?Udolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35565664953649636102012-06-01T21:09:12.509-07:002012-06-01T21:09:12.509-07:00G. Prosling: In addition the US govt underwent nu...G. Prosling: <i>In addition the US govt underwent numerous embarassing incidents when Third World diplomats tryng to do ordinary business in the leader of the "Free World" were kicked out of, or denied service in Maryland hotels or housing because of their race...Here indeed is your possible test case where racial loyalty was directly hurting US foreign policy.</i><br /><br />But one wonders how many of the complainants were quite content themselves to act in terms of "particularist" loyalties in their own lives, rather than the universalist principles they were demanding of others? To demand inclusion while reserving the right to exclude is a pretty common, not to say universal, human propensity. You don't make an appeal to universalist principles to a people who aren't susceptible to such appeals.Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91314793746198792112012-06-01T20:54:38.718-07:002012-06-01T20:54:38.718-07:00Grover Prosling:
Overstated.
Not in the contex...Grover Prosling: <br /><br /><i>Overstated.</i><br /><br />Not in the context, it ain't.<br /><br /><i>The "rule of law" and higher principles of justice and order, is a feature of legal and ethical systems on every continent from ancient times- whether it be the laws of Hammurabi, the courts of the Ethiopian negus, or the judges of ancient China.</i><br /><br />And they were "particularist" "rules of law", and "justice and order", culturally rooted. None of those people were twisting themselves in knots, and unraveling their own mores, trying to be so "higher order" that they started privileging the customs and laws of the "barbarians" over their own ways, in the name of unmoored abstractions and deracinated universalism. That is where the "leap-frogging" comes in.<br /><br />(Reading pro-tip: The odds are infinitesimally low that even the stupidest commenter here - which I grant may well be me - is unaware that all human societies have legal and ethical codes. Context, son, context.)<br /><br /><i>There is nothing "European" about "respecting higher principles of justice and order" (your own words) at all.</i><br /><br />There is certainly something "European" about flying so high into the universalist ether, and getting your head so far up your butt in abstractions that you can't even recognize that imported mores are culturally incompatible with, and simply logically contradictory to, your own - and to such an extent that you start actively disadvantaging and outright persecuting your own people, and undermining their codes of law and justice, to truckle to incoming aliens who don't cotton to the local "higher order principles" of social arrangement, all in the name of a "meta higher order", if you will, that nobody but some crazy European is going to take seriously.Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48572798947229632412012-06-01T20:50:37.298-07:002012-06-01T20:50:37.298-07:00So, libs will say, "Sure, Jews are smarter, a...<b>So, libs will say, "Sure, Jews are smarter, and that means they'll create more businesses and create more jobs and pay more taxes and share the wealth with rest of us." And "sure, blacks are better at sports, and so they'll win in sports and share the glory with us at the Olympics. Sure, they're better at funky music and fill our lives with joy." And "sure, Asians are lamer but they make good drones and will do much of the grunt boring work." And "sure, Mexicans are 'boring' but they make good dish washers and grass cutters." Thus, we all gain by integrating diverse talents of differntly talented races.</b><br />"Integrating diverse talents of differntly talented races" is hardly a liberal idea. A conservative free-marketer might see such as a good thing. Free markets would most efficiently, on the average, make the most of diverse individual and group talents, without imposing stereotyical straitjackets on either group or individual. And no government bureaucrats need be involved to "supervise" outcomes, or impose things like Jim Crow restrictions to ensure the "proper place" of free market transactors of whatever "race."<br /><br /><br /><b>The "thuggish methods of Jim Crow regimes" were almost entirely a fabrication of the mass media, while -- back in the real world -- the thuggish Soviet regime had murdered millions with the complicity of the same mass media.</b><br />You need a basic lesson in history. The "mass media" did not "fabricate" the killings of hundreds of Chinese in America for such "crimes" as competing with whites economically, nor did they "fabricate" almost a century of well documented fraud and murder perpetrated against blacks in America's Jim Crow south. See Klarman's 2004- From Jim Crow to Civil Rights- there is very little "fabrication" of a brutal history by the "media."<br /><br /><br /><b>Were they [the Third World Diplomats] so treated because of the law?</b><br /><br />There were no official laws requiring segregation in Maryland, but the practice was pervasive, right into the nation's capital. Interestingly, it was a Republican that made a campaign promise to desegregate the nations capital. It was Eisenhower's admin that pressured white businesses and organizations to shape up- from taxicabs to restaurants, to companies that held back long-serving black employees from promotion because they were black, while junior whites with less experience were moved ahead, or that refused to hire blacks altogether. Indeed Ike invited owners of Washington's hotels and theaters to the White House to persuade them to end segregation. Alongside this were initiatives to fully desegregate the armed forces and eliminate job discrimination in the federal workforce. See The Eisenhower Years By Michael S. Mayer. What stopped public accomodations segregation in Maryland ultimately was not concentric goodwill but state legislation that made it illegal. FOllowing upon state legislation was the national Civil Rights Act of 1964.Grover Proslingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59332225016904114492012-06-01T18:22:38.975-07:002012-06-01T18:22:38.975-07:00It might just be the way a child's mind works
...<i>It might just be the way a child's mind works</i><br /><br />Raised in a good environment, yes. It's not universal.<br /><br /><i>How much of our negative attitude toward satisfaction with one's identity is a consequence of the cultural criticism that has dominated the country in the past 60 years, the pathologizing of all things that lead to fitness and happiness? How much as been an attempt to create self-doubt in the American people, do cause them to stutter and lose and step, to demoralize them?</i><br /><br />Good questions.<br /><br /><i>I would argue that Liberals instead reject their own heritage because they don't like their family</i><br /><br />Certainly fits with the direction here...<br /><br /><i>Leapfrogging = The Rule of Law</i><br /><br />Yeah, not really. You seem to be confusing universalism with rule of law. Nazis, Jim Crow south, and the Confederacy all liked rule of law.<br /><br /><i>Third World diplomats tryng to do ordinary business in the leader of the "Free World" were kicked out of, or denied service in Maryland hotels or housing because of their race.</i><br /><br />Were they so treated because of the law?Svigorhttp://svigor.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39000954088334865622012-06-01T17:31:45.798-07:002012-06-01T17:31:45.798-07:00aARON SAID:
Maybe I should have said white liberal...aARON SAID:<br /><b>Maybe I should have said white liberals. That's who we're all talking about, anyway. I don't know the statistics, but here's the story we here nowadays: whites in the upper classes (say, upper-middle and above), who tend to be liberal, are more likely to get married and to stay married, much less likely to have children out of wedlock, more likely invest strongly (in a bourgeois sense) in their children, more likely to go to church, and so on, than are whites in the lower classes, who tend to be conservative. Liberals are more loyal within the "most inner" concentric circle, while conservatives leapfrog.</b><br />Well you have a point there as well. Liberals can be accused of hypocrisy on this score. Some conservatives charge that they advocate fulsome abortion, promiscuity, government dependency etc for others, but for themsleves, "limousine liberals" ensure that they DON'T follow their own liberal advocacy for others. They make sure their kids are in well heeled, secure, disciplined, achieving schools, rather than say schools where trendy (but ineffectual) "whole language" and "rain forest math" helps produce dismal results for students. They advocate all sorts of "rights" for hoodlums and thugs in public housing projects, making it hard to get rid of these destroyers of civic life, but would not tolerate said hoodlums and their thuggery in their own well-heeled white neighborhoods. They call for high "redistributionary" taxes on "the rich", but they themselves are pulling down nice incomes and are able to employ a suite of skilled accounting types to ensure that they pay minimize tax payments. They call for even more "compassionate" government spending, but are earning a nice living from the government salaries paid to "administer" compassion. ANd so on, and so on.. On the flip side, some would argue that this liberal hypocrisy is proof of their higher cleverness, hence why liberals according to some reports, post higher IQs than conservatives (Kanazawa 2010).<br /><br />Anon sez:<br /><b>Ah, yes, it makes so much sense to let our enemies set our domestic policy.</b><br />^^You must be living in some alternative fantasy world. The Soviet Union did not "set" US domestic policy. Since when is ensuring equal opportunity under the law a "Soviet plot"? Is the 14th Amendment a "communist plot?" Lets join the real world shall we.. And Civil Rights policy has been around since the 1800s, long before the SOviet Union appeared to allegedly "set" US domestic policy. <br /><br /><br /><br /><b>I suggest meditating upon the paradox that the ideals of "rule of law", and respecting higher principles of justice and order, actually is a sample of your "particulist normativity" - the norm of a particular people, whom you identified yourself - "European".</b><br /><br />Overstated. The "rule of law" and higher principles of justice and order, is a feature of legal and ethical systems on every continent from ancient times- whether it be the laws of Hammurabi, the courts of the Ethiopian negus, or the judges of ancient China. There is nothing "European" about "respecting higher principles of justice and order" (your own words) at all.<br /><br /><br /><b>Some Europeans in their hubris have failed to notice that the whole notion of disinterested justice is profoundly culturally rooted.</b><br />^DUbious. There is noting at all "European" about "disinterested justice" (your own words) as even basic history shows. Legal rules and guidelines on every continent for example forbid or warn judges against the taking of bribes- and thus perverting justice.Grover Proslingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43178010616861482452012-06-01T17:16:52.949-07:002012-06-01T17:16:52.949-07:00@anon 2:31,
"woods colt" means illegiti...@anon 2:31,<br /><br />"woods colt" means illegitimate child. The term comes from a mare having a colt from an unknown stallion, presumably the mating being done under unsupervised circumstances out in the woods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3676169024320834322012-06-01T16:51:17.855-07:002012-06-01T16:51:17.855-07:00Yes Virginia was a fine place, but only for the &q...<i>Yes Virginia was a fine place, but only for the "right people" in past eras.</i><br /><br />oh brother, a certain type of conservative will just never get over how virtuous apologizing for dead people makes him...you see back then blacks were badly mistreated, whereas today we can see what great upstanding citizens that civil rights and freedom have made themUdolpho.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976984423336975944noreply@blogger.com