We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

There is no such thing as a "clinically rigorous apportionment of responsibility for disadvantages." Every single factor that leads one to be disadvantaged and to remain disadvantaged created and continues to create the conditions that make the people of that disadvantaged group act the way they act.

There is a way to make a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppression acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed.

I hate this, by the way, because I'm talking about people behaving monolithically, which offends my sense of intellectual honesty and my understanding of people. But to get through this, we have to do so.

There is nothing about black people that makes them more prone to give up on a job search. If they do, it's because there have been generations of negative experiences with job searches as well as the current conditions, in relation to white people (for example) when it comes to a job search, that results in that behavior. There is nothing innate about black people that makes them tend to be less educated.

Agreed it is cultural. The science here regarding any "race" is beyond dispute and reaches exactly the point you have.

The conditions in this country in which slaves and blacks generally spent generations being flogged and killed for attempting to educate themselves results in generations of uneducated people who do not have the same tools to use and give their offspring to succeed on the same levels as white people.

Agreed again.

And they don't have the same expectation or experience that leads them to conclude that education leads to success.

This is a really sad point. But, yes. And without trying to dilute the point in any way, it applies to many more communities. And is expanding.

We can do this all day with whatever example you can think of. If you accept the fact that race is a social construct, then the only explanation for how races act differently in comparison to each other is based on the racial disadvantages or advantages thrust on them.

I do, but I don't see why a solid clinical analysis can't be applied to the cultural issues. Granted, it's soft data, but cultural stuff is always soft.

What people who want to have this blame apportionment discussion really want to talk about is why black people don't try harder, or do more, or why they stay stuck. The shift in the conversation away from what I outlined above is intentional and the conversation always leads to personal responsibility and anecdotal evidence. That's when we get:

"Thurgreed made it, why can't everyone?"
"I had it tough too. Look at how well I've done."
"But what about affirmative action?"
"My ancestors came from Ireland and were treated poorly, but Irish don't have the same problems as blacks today."
"What about black-on-black crime?"

Agreed. And this is where the conversation turns sour and stupid. This is where Harris veered with Klein, and Klein had the better of him. I'll cop to having done it myself. It's easy to draw analogues using other “races,” and the debating hat overtakes the "let's have an enlightened discussion" hat. Where I've used the comparisons to Irish and Chinese, I've been cheap and lazy. And wrong. Its unforgivable for me to try to score points fucking around with someone like GGG using an argument that perpetuates discrimination.

In order to have a conversation on this front where you are "clinically and rigorously apportioning responsibility for disadvantages," you have to completely abandon the notion that race is a social construct.

Here's where I perhaps step on a huge third rail. I think one can assess cultural behaviors and conclude that, controlling for oppression, a group is shooting itself in the foot a bit.

My analogue there would be the Catholic Church. Catholics as a whole are held back by a very regressive religion. It teaches loathsome things, like one must reproduce regardless of economic concerns, one should not worry about this life as the next is more important. These insidious teachings are geared to control people. I'd never draw a 1:1 between this and what blacks have suffered, but I'd say a study of Catholics might show how one studies a cultural group and teases out where the oppressive control mechanisms (the institutional predation) ends, and the cultural behaviors reactive to it become superseding causes.

Catholicism's diabolical control mechanisms can be blamed to a point. But at a later point, many Catholics started to "game the system" and find a way around it, or just left. (Yours truly never joined. I wouldn't even pay fealty to it as a child, finding it abhorrent in second grade.)

If certain negative cultural behaviors persist despite clear evidence they are doing no one any favors, and actually holding people back (and I would say this applies too frequently to Catholic culture, where many people are content to remain of modest class and part of an often middling community), at a certain point, some responsibility falls on those of the community. That could be teased out in data. Fluffy data, subject to debate, but necessarily assessed to address the issue in whole.

And if such an approach were used, accepting entirely, as should be, that race is a cultural construct, it would end the genetics debate, which is truly evil and never offered for any legitimate point.

(I'll apologize if this offends a Catholic. But only for offending you. Not for what I've said. It's entirely factual.)

TM[/QUOTE]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

When TM posted the review, I thought "that sounds like conversations we've had over the the years with Sebby." I alluded to, but did not state, that in my response to TM.

i fucked with you too much over the years, and I promised Jesus and T I would stop, but I have to say, no white person should think “what other white person is this book referring to.”

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do, but I don't see why a solid clinical analysis can't be applied to the cultural issues. Granted, it's soft data, but cultural stuff is always soft.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here's where I perhaps step on a huge third rail. I think one can assess cultural behaviors and conclude that, controlling for oppression, a group is shooting itself in the foot a bit.

This is not true. Black culture was specifically built as a reaction in almost every way to disadvantage and white oppression. Only food available are the throwaway parts? Make pigs feet and ham hocks. Suffer all day every day? Create spirituals, jazz, blues, rock and roll, hip hop. Forced into poverty and denied home ownership? Show off what you can when you can (clothes, jewelry, your car)--in fact, let everyone know that you actually have something in order to fight the presumption that you are black and therefore worthless and have nothing. Told you're nothing, dirt, second-class citizens? Brag about yourself a la Ali. Can't get a job? Create your own opportunities selling drugs. Punished for any type of push back? Create code language and slang to keep whites in the dark. White people co-opt what you're doing because it's forbidden and therefore cool? Abandon it immediately, making the next thing even more cool. Etc.

Black culture is completely shaped by black people's circumstances.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My analogue there would be the Catholic Church. Catholics as a whole are held back by a very regressive religion. It teaches loathsome things, like one must reproduce regardless of economic concerns, one should not worry about this life as the next is more important. These insidious teachings are geared to control people. I'd never draw a 1:1 between this and what blacks have suffered, but I'd say a study of Catholics might show how one studies a cultural group and teases out where the oppressive control mechanisms (the institutional predation) ends, and the cultural behaviors reactive to it become superseding causes.

Catholicism is not a culture. Anyone can be Catholic. And although Catholics are looked down upon by certain people, they are not really at a disadvantage anymore. The analogy fails further because it is voluntary. Comparing the two things doesn't work unless you want to focus strictly on the religious aspects of both groups which have similar positives and negatives. But then you're just comparing religious people.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Catholicism's diabolical control mechanisms can be blamed to a point. But at a later point, many Catholics started to "game the system" and find a way around it, or just left. (Yours truly never joined. I wouldn't even pay fealty to it as a child, finding it abhorrent in second grade.)

If certain negative cultural behaviors persist despite clear evidence they are doing no one any favors, and actually holding people back (and I would say this applies too frequently to Catholic culture, where many people are content to remain of modest class and part of an often middling community), at a certain point, some responsibility falls on those of the community.

This is where you're wrong (at least when it comes to blacks as a race). Any one person can be held responsible for poor choices. But if you live in a racist system that has put you in a situation based on the impact of centuries of racism, what leads a group to act collectively to their detriment is the disadvantage forced on them (and I'm not even going to get into whatever detrimental examples of behavior are attributed to blacks that whites do not also engage in--that's a whole 'nother topic). And that's racism.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That could be teased out in data. Fluffy data, subject to debate, but necessarily assessed to address the issue in whole.

I'm not quite sure what "fluffy data" is, but the people who want to talk about how one race acts to their own detriment are almost always racist and their "fluffy data" is completely anecdotal.

Anyway, I'm out. Away on vacation soon, so I may not respond.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is not true. Black culture was specifically built as a reaction in almost every way to disadvantage and white oppression. Only food available are the throwaway parts? Make pigs feet and ham hocks. Suffer all day every day? Create spirituals, jazz, blues, rock and roll, hip hop. Forced into poverty and denied home ownership? Show off what you can when you can (clothes, jewelry, your car)--in fact, let everyone know that you actually have something in order to fight the presumption that you are black and therefore worthless and have nothing. Told you're nothing, dirt, second-class citizens? Brag about yourself a la Ali. Can't get a job? Create your own opportunities selling drugs. Punished for any type of push back? Create code language and slang to keep whites in the dark. White people co-opt what you're doing because it's forbidden and therefore cool? Abandon it immediately, making the next thing even more cool. Etc.

Black culture is completely shaped by black people's circumstances.

Catholicism is not a culture. Anyone can be Catholic. And although Catholics are looked down upon by certain people, they are not really at a disadvantage anymore. The analogy fails further because it is voluntary. Comparing the two things doesn't work unless you want to focus strictly on the religious aspects of both groups which have similar positives and negatives. But then you're just comparing religious people.

This is where you're wrong (at least when it comes to blacks as a race). Any one person can be held responsible for poor choices. But if you live in a racist system that has put you in a situation based on the impact of centuries of racism, what leads a group to act collectively (and I'm not even going to get into whatever detrimental examples of behavior are attributed to blacks that whites do not also engage in--that's a whole 'nother topic) to their detriment is the disadvantage. And that's racism.

I'm not quite sure what "fluffy data" is, but the people who want to talk about how one race acts to their own detriment are almost always racist and their "fluffy data" is completely anecdotal.

Anyway, I'm out. Away on vacation soon, so I may not respond.

TM

“Fluffy data” = Anthropological data. It’s a shit science, but the only one that does culture.

ETA: None of the reactive cultural things you cite are liabilities. Those reactions are assets.

ETA2: I really, really hate this discussion. It’s so loaded, and so stupid. Is there a serious fucking difference? Melanin? A cultural chasm has occurred over melanin? Or culture? Or religion? How fucking arbitrary can people be? I have to slog thru the gag inducing intellectual exercise of arguing how we might discern where a culture might’ve acted counter-productively in response to another that defined it as different based on melanin?

This shit makes me wonder whether evolution is real. This is lizard brain stuff at its core.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No.

First, we were talking about how best to address white people's feelings in order to effectively move past the defensive stage so that we can effect change. If white people feel like racism is solely about a person being "bad," they will throw everything they have in their arsenal to fight that characterization, never acknowledge their own racism, and we get nowhere. Therefore, there has been an evolution in how we approach racism so that we avoid those feelings altogether.

Second, either you believe race is a social construct or you do not. If you do, there is no point in examining how much "responsibility" a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances because their actions are necessarily influenced by their disadvantages. Any discussion of a race's responsibility for their circumstances is ridiculous because if there was no such thing as racism, their circumstances would be exactly the same as everyone else's in this country. People who say shit like, "I understand that black people have had it tough, but they have to start taking responsibility for where they are at some point," are either deluded as to what has happened and is currently happening in this country or are racist as fuck.

It's a ridiculous discussion. "How much responsibility did French Huguenots have for their slaughter by the majority Catholics?" "How much responsibility did Gypsies have for their predicament in Nazi Germany?" "How much responsibility do Iranian gays have for their persecution in Iran"? -- Questions that exactly no one has ever asked, and for good reason.

eta:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is a way to make a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppression acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed.

Please give a published example of "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed." Patty Hearst doesn't count.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We had a candidate for President who was a bigot, xenophobe, and at voting time I was pretty sure was a racist (I held out hope he wasn’t...). Deal. Breaker.

You and I are not everybody.

When I said a person could compartmentalize, I was being literal. It cannot be stated that all Trump supporters are okay with his racism. That is an overstatement and a generalization.

If you think TM said that, you aren't trying very hard to understand him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think you're right, but there is a kind of reaction going on the right's tribalism, which is that there are a whole lot of people just giving the right wingers a wide berth. Crossing the street when they see them. More true since the rise of Trump. And the right is reacting strongly to this, but doing everything they can at the same time to earn the reaction.

So there is a whole branch of my family who live in the district where the Congressman got hauled in for insider trading today. Some of them are getting ready to cast their first votes in many years for Democrats.

I don't disagree that people are reacting to conservatives, but it's not right to label as "tribalism" any reaction to conservatives. There is a fundamental asymmetry that Sebby willfully ignores.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you think TM said that, you aren't trying very hard to understand him.

Reread. Note to whom I responded.

Or, Belgians?

ETA: That’s cheap of me. I realize now you meant TM’s earlier post.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't disagree that people are reacting to conservatives, but it's not right to label as "tribalism" any reaction to conservatives. There is a fundamental asymmetry that Sebby willfully ignores.

I observe it.

The left is far more honest than the right.

How many times do have to acknowledge this?

When I said the hard left is “cuckoo pants,” I was referring to their known ludicrous demands.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is a way to make a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppression acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed.

Please give a published example of "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed." Patty Hearst doesn't count.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I observe it.

The left is far more honest than the right.

How many times do have to acknowledge this?

When I said the hard left is “cuckoo pants,” I was referring to their known ludicrous demands.

Dude, just as business class is not just a matter of getting little cups of peanuts, tribalism is not just a diminished tolerance for dishonesty in politics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's a ridiculous discussion. "How much responsibility did French Huguenots have for their slaughter by the majority Catholics?" "How much responsibility did Gypsies have for their predicament in Nazi Germany?" "How much responsibility do Iranian gays have for their persecution in Iran"? -- Questions that exactly no one has ever asked, and for good reason.

eta:


Please give a published example of "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed." Patty Hearst doesn't count.

Get the fuck out of my head. “Stockholm” was on my fingertips so many times re: Catholicism, but it’s so misapplied re: racism, I would never touch it in this discussion.

But Catholics? Stockholm on Fucking Steroids.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Please give a published example of "a scientific assessment of instances where the victims of a systemic oppressed acquired responsibility for remaining oppressed." Patty Hearst doesn't count.

Catholicism needs it. And then the Scots-Irish of Appalachia.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'm a Democrat, with a capital D, and damn proud of it.... it has still been on the right side of virtually every issue for the last half century, and its done a lot of good.

The Vietnam War?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The Vietnam War?

Yup. The Democratic Party had completed its flip on Vietnam in 1968 (see e.g. the primary results for Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and Bobby Kennedy in California, not to mention LBJ’s October Surprise peace deal which was scuttled by Nixon’s friends Anna Chennault and Madame Ky). Hard as it is to believe, that was 50 years ago.