On May 22, the NYT ran one of their "Room for Debate" symposiums, this one on "Is Anti-White Bias a Problem?"
Debaters
When Prejudice Is So Malleable
Patricia J. Williams, professor, Columbia Law School
Overt Vs. Covert
David E. Bernstein, law professor, George Mason University
White Folks Shouldn't Worry
Paul Butler, law professor, George Washington University
An Old Source of Resentment
Abigail Thernstrom, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Affirmative Action and Public Opinion
Jeffrey Rosen, author, "The Most Democratic Branch"
A Broader Societal Shift
Victoria C. Plaut, U.C. Berkeley Law School
Jockeying for Stigma
Michael I. Norton, Harvard Business School and
Samuel R. Sommers, psychologist, Tufts Universit
Notice anybody missing? Oh, yeah, the guy, Jared Taylor, who has a brand new book out on precisely this topic: White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. It's quite likely, indeed, that the NYT's topic was inspired in part or indirectly by Taylor's book, which I reviewed 7 days earlier. (A lot of topics I bring up get quickly laundered into the high end blogosphere by Matthew Yglesias, among others.)
But, evidently, there's no room for debate when it comes to Jared Taylor.
Posts
36 comments:
RKU at Mangan's had this LOL comment:
So, on the controversial social question of whether (non-Jewish) whites are subject to racial discrimination in America something like one or two of the eight participants are non-Jewish whites. Next up: a debate on Protestant rights in Ulster between Cardinal O'Sullivan, Bishop O'Connor, Father O'Malley, and Sean Shaemas O'Rourke.
Having looked through the theses I can see that they excluded not just Jared Taylor but any conventional conservatives as well, or even centrists. This is a purely intra-liberal debate: "The peasants are revolting. What's wrong with them?" Nor was it inspired by Taylor's book. In their world that book simply doesn't exist, as well as Taylor himself.
By the way, these theses are a great source of unintentionally hilarious quotes. I'll leave it to others to mine it.
Two blacks and four jews, none of whom, including the other two, side with Whites. It perfectly typifies the anti-White bias supposedly being debated.
sommers, bernstein,rosner
...and no white gentile males - does the NYT KNOW they are doing this?
is it my imagination or have they become MORE bias since the advent of the internet and bloggers exposing how bias they are??
Sad thing is SWPL liberals who read the NYT think they are actually watching a 'debate' like when Wolf Blitzer has William Kristol and Tom Friedman on to discuss middle east policy.
@Not RKU
LOL!
There was another recent Room for Debate on "should there be a latino museum on the mall" (prob occasioned by Rep. Moran's comment "it's unamerican to have a separate museum for each group")in which everybody agreed there should be a latino museum on the mall. Glad we cleared that up.
The debate was inspired by this study, not Taylor's book, which has gone completely unnoticed outside of the WN/paleocon/HBD circles. As Taylor himself has pointed out, he has never been more marginal than today. It is not even possible for him to organize Amren conferences anymore, nor would anyone publish his book. It's a pity. In a different era, Taylor might have become a leading statesman.
Interestingly, the comments that seemed to have gained the most support obviously believe in anti-white discrimination. Surprising for a NYT audience unless Sailer readers are heading over to the 'symposium" and doing most of the voting.
even this is about the Jews? Ugh.
The substance and tone of Abigail Thernstrom's piece is (unsurprisingly) at odds with the comments I've read so far. Take this passage, for example:
'Likewise, preferential admissions at the University of Michigan occasioned legal challenges to racial double standards at the law school and in the college. There are only a fixed number of seats in the freshman class at each school. Blacks with dramatically weaker academic qualifications than their white classmates had been given some of those places; whites and Asians, who had to meet higher admission standards than minority applicants, lost out. The result: a perception of what authors Norton and Sommers call “anti-white bias.”'
'Is it really a perception that requires exploration and explanation — resting as it does on the reality of bias built into public policies?'
Maybe I'm misreading her, but what's unreasonable or dismissive about that?
You sound like such a jackass taking credit for inspiring stories without any proof.
Silly me, I thought that in a debate, TWO opposing viewpoints are presented.
Jared Taylor is evil. Al Sharpton is good. No more to explain.
Notice that virtually no one on the panel would be likely to identify themselves first as "white", instead of black, Jewish, etc. Yet they are all experts on whether anti-white bias is a problem for whites.
"even this is about the Jews? Ugh."
Correction:
Even this is BY and FROM Jews.
Diversity is our strength!
>even this is about the Jews? Ugh.<
Yes, it is. Look at all those Jews talking about it...and taking sides against whites.
Ugh, indeed.
"OK? Conspiracy detected, I guess?
lololdright, being irrelevant"
Millennials talk like 5 year-old girls.
>lololdright, being irrelevant<
Shouldn't you be on a beach right now, celebrating your graduation from community college?
"The substance and tone of Abigail Thernstrom's piece is (unsurprisingly) at odds with the comments I've read so far."
What she says amounts to "so what, nothing new here". She goes through the motions of neutral, objective understanding, mouthing a few rhetorical questions, showing no sign of having any concern about the answers.
"Notice that virtually no one on the panel would be likely to identify themselves first as "white""
A panel supposedly debating anti-X bias but consisting of a majority non-Xs who take positions ranging anywhere from "what problem?" to "non-Xs have it worse!" pretty well demonstrates anti-X bias. Never mind that this kind of non-debate is only regarded non-debatable when X=White.
Not that any fan of the NY Times would stoop to this sort of crimethink, but how delicious is the irony of a bunch of black and Jewish professors lecturing at middle or lower class white people for feeling biased against? How meta.
Tim Naylor
Brooklyn, NY
May 22nd, 2011 9:59 pm
wrote in comment number 6 on the page:
"As an Asian, I find it outrageous that if I were applying to an Ivy College today, on average, I'd have to get higher marks and scores on my SAT than either black or white to get accepted. Does something seem wrong with this picture? It's not like our people were welcomed to these shores with open arms. An equivalent black admission can score approximately 20 % lower in standardized test and have the same chance of acceptance as an Asian fresh off the boat. In short, people are being penalized for excellence while other are given on hall pass on mediocrity. It does no one favors. It creates resentment on the part of the rejected who has a higher score than the accepted who is ill prepared for what lay ahead."
Rookout!!!!!
Gozilla is waaaakin uuuuuupppp!
I don't know, I thought that, despite his equivocating, David Bernstein made a very strong statement here:
By contrast, discrimination in favor of African-Americans (and other minorities) is protected by law in some contexts, and is often not just explicit, but proudly trumpeted.
To me, that just nails it. We are lectured endlessly about what an awful thing racial discrimination is, but then the lecturers turn around and endorse racial discrimination against whites that is above board and proud. Never mind the tricky question of comparing the severity of the "hidden" discrimination against minorities against the open discrimination against whites. The openness in itself enough to provoke resentment, and rightly so.
How did I miss this gem by the esteemed, learned eruditor woman in chief from NYT:
"data show that white Americans remain the most privileged human beings on the planet.".
Intelligence, respect for science and scientific method, deep perception and, dare I say it, BRILLIANCE,
just OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZE out of this quote.
Data show, indeed.
"like such a jackass taking credit for inspiring stories without any proof."
I'm sorry but sometimes comments responding to another comment are not clear in what they mean. You are not in tete-a-tete. Please quote that to which you are repsonding or you just confuse.
"WE WILL THINK AND FEEL ON OUR OWN, AND WE DON'T NEED NO FREAKING LECTURE, APPROVAL, OR ACCEPTANCE FROM THE LIKES OF PATRICIA WILLIAMS OR LIBERAL JEWS!!! WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT AND NEED!!"
You're scaring the children. All the little children with big dreams.
+1 to TH on Jared Taylor's marginalized status now. He has (for the time being) become an unperson to the NYT and the rest of the media.
Kudos to Steve for bringing Taylor back up, and standing up for him. Steve's stubbornness (I think we've all seen it) and his media-elite readership (I believe this to be absolutely true) may get Taylor get some penetration into the so-called mainstream, even if it's crypto-style, similar to the way that Steve's own insights have disseminated.
Please stop reading the NYTimes, everyone.
You make those people relevant.
Aside from Taylor, they could have invited HBD aware philosopher Michael Levin for his perspective.
Why Race Matters.
what was missing? obviously the new york times "right think" editor was missing the day these articles were published. if said editor had not been missing work that day, he would have noticed that a christian european man was allowed to give his opinion on the topic.
that's not allowed. how did michael norton slip past the editors?
rest of the authors:
woman
jewish guy
african guy
woman
jewish guy
woman
jewish guy
ha! come on stupid euro american men, what do you have to be afraid of? clearly as these sagacious professors and authors can tell you, EVERYTHING IS GOING GREAT. there is nothing to worry about. do not notice that your country is deliberately being taken away from you.
Is that panel 100% black or Jewish?
Not RKU:
"Next up: a debate on Protestant rights in Ulster between Cardinal O'Sullivan, Bishop O'Connor, Father O'Malley, and Sean Shaemas O'Rourke."
Heh heh. :)
"The finding that white Americans see blacks’ progress as an insult or a diminishment of their status is not entirely surprising."
Glad she didn't start off this well-researched article with a patronizing tone...
White's grievance with blacks has more to do with de facto scapegoating for what ails them as a race than their "rise" to affluence. I have never, ever heard white people discussing how their quality of life has been diminished by such a large and stable black middle or professional class. This is a phoney argument that negates rightful claims of unfairness that exist in the area of government and DWL enforced NAM favoritism.
"The debate was inspired by this study, not Taylor's book, which has gone completely unnoticed outside of the WN/paleocon/HBD circles. As Taylor himself has pointed out, he has never been more marginal than today. It is not even possible for him to organize Amren conferences anymore, nor would anyone publish his book. It's a pity. In a different era, Taylor might have become a leading statesman."
Taylor's strategy has always been to make alliances with conservatives, Republicans and Jews and to position white nationalism as mainstream. He seemed to be having some success back in the 90's, probably peaking about 15 years ago, but since then, his influence has gone steadily down. He doesn't seem to have any support outside of white nationalist circles anymore.
Does anyone see any chance that the mainstream conservative movement will embrace racialism anytime soon?
As for the panel:
Is this impression of the debater's ethnicities correct?
Willaims - black
Berstein - Jewish
Butler - black
Thernstrom - Jewish
Rosen - Jewish
Plaut - Jewish
Norton - white
Sommers - Jewish
Demeritocracy is just what we need.
Judeocracy and Afrocracy.
Btw, wasn't there an NYRB article about how lots of whites/Jews at NY Times felt they were being passed over in favor of less qualified blacks like Jayson Blair?
Well, well.
Post a Comment