We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't care whether he's left or right, he's a fucking bigot.

Dismissed.

Reopened.

Sam Harris is not even close to a bigot.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-...called-racist/

Thanks for this article. I haven't seen it.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

hope T doesn't have any deals closing this week.

Don't expect any crazy exchanges in that podcast. The conversation is lucid, thoughtful, and low key.

The one where Klein and Harris go at it is way hotter. Klein makes some really solid points, but in the end, Harris corners him on being pro-censorship and Klein, realizing he's in a tight spot, pretty much concedes that yes, he is.

I have to respect Klein's candor in it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How could that not be the case, given blacks are a minority. If 15% of people are black, statistically, how would whites (or any other group) support them for positions in greater numbers than the other 85%?

First of all, what difference does it make? The point is that there is a built-in advantage that perpetuates itself.

Second, it's not just because there are more whites. The problem is the positions whites are in based on a hundreds of years of huge advantages. So not only are there more whites. There are way more rich and powerful whites.

Third, no matter how much you try to ignore the fact that white people absolutely do not associate with black and other minority people in a significant way and do not formulate relationships that are deep and meaningful in a way that would create opportunities at the same levels for black people, that fact cannot be avoided.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your second sentence suggests that whites with more diverse social networks tend not to have as much power as whites who do not. While the cynic in me finds that somewhat compelling, I'm going to have to spit your "don't throw anecdotes at me" line back at you here.

I don't think you know what "anecdote" means.

If you want to argue that wealthy and powerful (even relatively speaking) white people have tons of black friends, you can have that argument on that island you're sitting on by yourself.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn't dignify Ty's argument in this regard, based on a logical fallacy (see, you're proving my point by disagreeing with me!), and I won't yours.

No need to dignify something so obvious. It stands on its own.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

hope T doesn't have any deals closing this week.

I'm not clicking on that. Hell, it takes everything I have to not skip Sebby's posts altogether.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

First of all, what difference does it make? The point is that there is a built-in advantage that perpetuates itself.

You cited a difference. I offered simple math explaining it.

Second, it's not just because there are more whites. The problem is the positions whites are in based on a hundreds of years of huge advantages. So not only are there more whites. There are way more rich and powerful whites.

I didn't say it the math explained it in total. But it explains an awful lot of it. And you overlooked that math.

Third, no matter how much you try to ignore the fact that white people absolutely do not associate with black and other minority people in a significant way and do not formulate relationships that are deep and meaningful in a way that would create opportunities at the same levels for black people, that fact cannot be avoided.

I'm not ignoring it. I accept most of that.

I do not accept that this applies to all minorities if one lumps Jews, Asians, Middle-Easterners, Indians, and Latinos into the "minorities." But you're correct regarding Blacks. That segregation persists.

I don't think you know what "anecdote" means.

You asserted that whites with minority friends tended not to be powerful whites. This could only based on anecdata.

If you want to argue that wealthy and powerful (even relatively speaking) white people have tons of black friends, you can have that argument on that island you're sitting on by yourself.

Since we're comparing anecdotes, my observation would be that the more educated and intelligent a person is, the less he focuses on race or ethnic background. I'm more likely to see a diverse crowd at a wealthy person's party than at a middle class white party.

But that's just more "bullshit" from me, of course.

No need to dignify something so obvious. It stands on its own.

If we've reached the nadir where an article stating that white people are defensive about race issues cannot be criticized without the infantile response, "See, you proved the point!", this place is done. If a person is going to engage in that silliness, he might as well title the thread, "This Post Is Irrefutable: Read It, Accept It in Total, and Don't Dare Reply!"

...Actually, that title pretty much sums up the United States at the moment, right and left.

TM[/QUOTE]

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You cited a difference. I offered simple math explaining it.



I didn't say it the math explained it in total. But it explains an awful lot of it. And you overlooked that math.



I'm not ignoring it. I accept most of that.

I do not accept that this applies to all minorities if one lumps Jews, Asians, Middle-Easterners, Indians, and Latinos into the "minorities." But you're correct regarding Blacks. That segregation persists.



You asserted that whites with minority friends tended not to be powerful whites. This could only based on anecdata.



Since we're comparing anecdotes, my observation would be that the more educated and intelligent a person is, the less he focuses on race or ethnic background. I'm more likely to see a diverse crowd at a wealthy person's party than at a middle class white party.

But that's just more "bullshit" from me, of course.



If we've reached the nadir where an article stating that white people are defensive about race issues cannot be criticized without the infantile response, "See, you proved the point!", this place is done. If a person is going to engage in that silliness, he might as well title the thread, "This Post Is Irrefutable: Read It, Accept It in Total, and Don't Dare Reply!"

...Actually, that title pretty much sums up the United States at the moment, right and left.

Yo, whatever man.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nor can you you assert over the nation's history that all whites have been similarly dominant. "Irish need not apply," "Italians are criminally oriented mafia sorts,"

They were not white at the time, just as latinx immigrants are not white now, regardless of how white they look.

But they could access whiteness, historically often by placing themselves in contrast with black people, who are obviously not white.

"White" is a construct that's meaning can and has changed over time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

They were not white at the time, just as latinx immigrants are not white now, regardless of how white they look.

But they could access whiteness, historically often by placing themselves in contrast with black people, who are obviously not white.

"White" is a construct that's meaning can and has changed over time.

oh Fuck. It's one thing when ggg or T maps my post.......

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You didn't read the article.

TM

I would love a little button at the bottom of comments on an article that could be clicked that points this out. Makes for easier scrolling through.

[Hank Chinaski]

Michigan is a blue state, that, as we know, went red. Our state legislature is heavily R, but that is Gerrymandering. We've regularly had R governors and the odd Senator- but to win statewide they have to be a business R, who feels close to liberal on abortion/gay rights etc.

So I was curious what the upcoming R primaries look like- are the candidates distancing from Trump? I watch little live TV, not claiming to read constantly so I don't watch anything (Hi Ty!), I constantly watch stuff, but mostly things like Mr. Ed on disc.

So I only recently saw the current TV ads- there is a smear ad for candidate 1 showing candidate 2- film of him saying things like, "Of course I don't agree with what Trump does, I mean, the stuff with women." 3 or 4 things quite similar.

The voice over then explains that #2 cannot be trusted to help move Trump's good works forward.

2's answer? I expected, "No shit. I'm not that kind of R." He'll need that to win in November.

But instead, the answer was film continuing after the earlier quotes- in each case he went on to say- "but, I can live with that behavior because he's the best President ever!" Or something like that.

There is no attempt to distance, to the contrary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you remove pimped out, subsidized cafeterias from employers like Google, which is what I'm talking about, Google and Google-like employers will find another way to compete for employees that doesn't amount to creating its own little, self-contained universe in which there is zero connection or benefit to the community.

I think your hostility to Google and their cafeterias, or the notion of them that you have, has not so much to do with the way they make food available to their employees. The Google cafeteria I went to wasn't "pimped out," whatever that means. The eBay cafeteria I went to wasn't subsidized, as far as I can tell, and I don't think you really object to subsidies there -- or do you think law-firm cafeterias need to calculate the market cost of the rent they don't pay and increase their prices by that amount? Surely no.

Aaron Peskin's proposal is a stupid idea. If, like some of us, you work at a company that brings in a decent lunch and you much prefer that to having to go out and get food, it's hard to understand why taking away the former option makes anyone better off. But if you have a bee in your bonnet about something else, maybe it sounds awesome.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This reminds me why I avoid Vox. I try to read it, but ultimately, its bias becomes too overt.

What bias? Roberts is reporting about a poll. Seriously?

If you'd like to hear Ezra Klein, Vox's Editor in Chief, talk himself in circles and ultimately argue for censorship in academia, consider this: https://samharris.org/podcasts/123-identity-honesty/

I was amazed that anyone could think that Harris came off well in that exchange. Maybe you can quote where Klein "argues for censorship in academia," because that's not what I recall. (Or maybe you can't.)

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Michigan is a blue state, that, as we know, went red. Our state legislature is heavily R, but that is Gerrymandering. We've regularly had R governors and the odd Senator- but to win statewide they have to be a business R, who feels close to liberal on personal rights.

So I was curious what the upcoming R primaries look like- are the candidates distancing from Trump? I watch little live TV, not claiming to read constantly so I don't watch anything (Hi Ty!), I constantly watch stuff, but mostly things like Mr. Ed reruns. So I only recently saw the current TV ads- there is a smear ad for candidate 1 showing candidate 2- film of him say things like, "Of course I don't agree with what Trump does, I mean, the stuff with women." 3 or 4 things quite similar.

The voice over then explains that #2 cannot be trusted to help move Trump's good works forward.

2's answer? I expected, "No shit. I'm not that kind of R." He'll need that to win in November.

But instead, the answer was film continuing after the earlier quotes- in each case he went on to say- "but, I can live with that behavior because he's the best President ever!" Or something like that.

There is no attempt to distance, to the contrary.

Same in Florida - the current Ag Commissioner Adam Putnam was expected to cruise to the GOP nomination and then to the governor’s mansion. Now he’s down by double-digits in the polls to a relatively junior congressman endorsed by President Trump. And the New York Times is ON IT.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Michigan is a blue state, that, as we know, went red. Our state legislature is heavily R, but that is Gerrymandering. We've regularly had R governors and the odd Senator- but to win statewide they have to be a business R, who feels close to liberal on abortion/gay rights etc.

So I was curious what the upcoming R primaries look like- are the candidates distancing from Trump? I watch little live TV, not claiming to read constantly so I don't watch anything (Hi Ty!), I constantly watch stuff, but mostly things like Mr. Ed reruns. So I only recently saw the current TV ads- there is a smear ad for candidate 1 showing candidate 2- film of him say things like, "Of course I don't agree with what Trump does, I mean, the stuff with women." 3 or 4 things quite similar.

The voice over then explains that #2 cannot be trusted to help move Trump's good works forward.

2's answer? I expected, "No shit. I'm not that kind of R." He'll need that to win in November.

But instead, the answer was film continuing after the earlier quotes- in each case he went on to say- "but, I can live with that behavior because he's the best President ever!" Or something like that.

There is no attempt to distance, to the contrary.

"It's always the economy, stupid."

The way to beat Trump in a state like that is to cite wages lagging, and how little of the tax cuts went to lower to middle class voters. Also blame the gas price increases on Trump's middle eastern policy (that's untrue, but whatever) and highlight the damage he's done to Obamacare.

Emphasizing Russia, pee tapes, and #metoo is the dangerous and unnecessary route. Use those only as icing where necessary.