Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
CptnChan

Why it's so hard to talk to white people about racism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Let's start with basic claims, and ask yourself if you're knee jerk responding to "omg tribalism!" Or if you're responding to the actual claims being made.

1. In actual history on planet earth, there were vast regimes of racial oppression.

2. This legacy of oppression has structural effects on society today.

3. Some of these effects can include benefits to white people today from the injustices done to persons of color in the past.

4. Some white people use individualist rhetoric to either downplay or deny the existence of 3, and also to assume the universality of their own experience.

Conclusion:

5. Number 4 is bad and does a disservice to individualism.

Notice that agreement with any or all of these points does not require adherence to social constructivism or Marxism or tribalism or whatever. All points can firmly fit within an objectivist epistemology and can be validated by reduction to perceptual data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget history. None living today are the cause of it.

Imagine if NOW we were suddenly put in a society with a perfect Objectivist system, i.e. pure capitalism and 3 branches of government, voluntary taxation... 80 percent of white people (lets assume they are NOT in government) could still be racist... and they would be wrong to be racist because it is NOT in their self interest. So what does having a great number of idiots in the general public mean for a perfect government/system? Nothing.

Now it is irrelevant that a person of the 20 percent has the same color of skin as one of the 80 percent, to form a concept of a group on the basis of skin color is an error, it is invalid conceptually and IS racism no matter what the skin color.

An individual of ANY color SHOULD be defensive when accused of something they are not guilty of, and did not commit.

Having thus assumed away the entire real world of privilege enjoyed by actually existing people, and the fact that past coercion by actually existing government has helped shaped the structure of society, you thus remove your argument from reality.

That's exactly the point. If you can posit a "clean slate" where persons of some racial group have never oppressed persons of another racial group, then the whole argument is moot, but the point is precisely that you can't posit such a state of affairs, so stop trying to use objectivism to "forget history."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......YOU are the problem.

Ignorant ad hominem seems to rule the day. I take issue with your point 3. You say "Some of these effects can include benefits to white people today from injustices done to persons of color in the past."

So, am I to infer that all white people benefit from past racial discrimination? I call BS. In what way do I benefit from my ancestors deserting from the army of northern Virginia to join the Pennsylvanian army during the civil war and then losing all they had after the war because there was no going back to Virginia? How do I benefit from my ancestors' being discriminated against during WWI because they spoke German? I should count myself fortunate because all white people benefit today because some blacks suffered in the past. I grew up dirt poor and all I have I earned, but I should count myself fortunate because all white people benefit from past racial discrimination.

Pray tell, how precisely did I benefit because I'm having a hard time reconciling the penury of my past with your uniform assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorant ad hominem seems to rule the day. I take issue with your point 3. You say "Some of these effects can include benefits to white people today from injustices done to persons of color in the past."

So, am I to infer that all white people benefit from past racial discrimination? I call BS. In what way do I benefit from my ancestors deserting from the army of northern Virginia to join the Pennsylvanian army during the civil war and then losing all they had after the war because there was no going back to Virginia? How do I benefit from my ancestors' being discriminated against during WWI because they spoke German? I should count myself fortunate because all white people benefit today because some blacks suffered in the past. I grew up dirt poor and all I have I earned, but I should count myself fortunate because all white people benefit from past racial discrimination.

Pray tell, how precisely did I benefit because I'm having a hard time reconciling the penury of my past with your uniform assertion.

Here's a different story: A bunch of white people put their jackboots on the throats of generations of blacks for centuries. Finally they partially lift their feet, and then after a few generations, some of the descendants of those black people say "Hey man, this really sucks what they did to our grandparents and great grandparents and such. We still deal with a lot of the after effects even today." Then aleph comes along and goes "No! Stop talking about that stuff guys! It hurts my feelings and makes me uncomfortable! Don't talk to me about racism!" You wouldn't really be surprised if the response was something along the likes of "Just.... Shut... Up..."

I mean if it comes down to you just don't believe that racial oppression effects the structure of the present system, that once slavery and Jim Crow were abolished it just poof, like it never even happened, and that white privilege doesn't exist at all, then your mind has truly closed and you will not be reached by anything here. I suggest doing some basic research, unless you're afraid it'll make you too uncomfortable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You failed to answer my basic question: How did the injustices done in the past benefit me? My ancestors lost everything in order to fight for black freedom. Today I am spat in the face and accused of racism unjustly. All I ask is that you do what you said that you can do: Trace these past injustices to a benefit to me personally. Reduce your claims to perception. Otherwise, you are just a name-calling mystic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2046, are you trying to defend the article, or the writer as well? The writer herself, if you look at her website, she's clearly in a tribalistic mindset. The article has wording to reflect that, by attempting to categorize what "white people do" as though the very upbringing prevents the ability to see any sense of racism anywhere. She isn't talking about how institutional racism comes about, she's saying how we are all attached to a racial identity.

Some sentences alone are ambiguous but hardly the way we as individuals would want to express it. First two paragraphs are okay, no problem. My questioning starts after that in her article.

"Because whites built and dominate all significant institutions"
There is no group called "white". What's more accurate is to narrow down to say which groups she means. WASPs? White Republicans? White Democrats? Rich people? Roman Catholics? It's all to vague, all she has is an amorphous blob of white people. Is she saying all institutions by white people support all white people? It just sounds tribalized "oh, are you white or not?" when there are other important ways to ask questions about institutions on dimensions -in addition- to race. She picks a racial dimension, then skips economic.

"One cannot understand how racism functions in the U.S. today if one ignores group power relations."
Yup. So it makes no sense to ignore group power relations such as income, gender, religious belief, political belief... She stops at race.

"Further, we are centered in all matters deemed normal, universal, benign, neutral and good. Thus, we move through a wholly racialized world with an unracialized identity (e.g. white people can represent all of humanity, people of color can only represent their racial selves)"
Okay, the first point is arguable, maybe. But her example is weird. Are we better off racialized? Which people implicitly racialize blacks but de-racialize whiteness? She seems to be criticizing a specific set of people, or specific institutions, but generalizes to the amorphous group "white people".

"Socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority and entitlement that we are either not consciously aware of or can never admit to ourselves, we become highly fragile in conversations about race."
This is a fine point, but when it's a point made to homogenize a wide group of people without regard for dimensions of race, it only looks tribalized. Socialization can be a problem, but she overgeneralizes whiteness.

"Whites are taught to see themselves as individuals, rather than as part of a racial group."
Looks like she's saying there's a problem in not being tribalized into a racial group. A sensible way to phrase the idea "some people use individualist rhetoric and avoid deeper facts." But she said nothing of the sort and emphasized "whiteness" alone.

"Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information. "
So do most people... Why tribalize it to whites specifically?

"Living in a white dominant context, we receive constant messages that we are better and more important than people of color."
Homogenization and then tribalization of a group. She doesn't say any specific media or facts, puts it in terms of race, as though pointing out that "most people are white, so of course most people you see are white" is itself evidence for messages of superiority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this issue bears focusing with greater resolution. There was a system of race-based oppression and, yeah, there are multi-generational effects. But who really benefited from the past oppression? The labor market of poor white people was negatively effected by black slave labor. This primarily benefited those whites who were *slave owners* not all whites. Sure, poor whites were far better off than black slaves (and afterward "free" blacks in the Jim Crow era). But how many people actually reaped the rewards of these atrocities? This website says that the highest rates of slave ownership in 1860 were in Georgia at 49%. That's shockingly high. But it also mean most families didn't own slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You failed to answer my basic question: How did the injustices done in the past benefit me? My ancestors lost everything in order to fight for black freedom. Today I am spat in the face and accused of racism unjustly. All I ask is that you do what you said that you can do: Trace these past injustices to a benefit to me personally. Reduce your claims to perception. Otherwise, you are just a name-calling mystic.

Dude who is accusing you of racism? Some tenant you had a while ago? Where does that belong in this discussion whatsoever?

Black people: Did you know that 150 years ago, you could own a dude?

Aleph: This one time, a black tenant called me a racist! Don't talk to me about racism!

This kind of tone deaf whitesplaining is exactly what the OP is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This website says that the highest rates of slave ownership in 1860 were in Georgia at 49%. That's shockingly high. But it also mean most families didn't own slaves.

Also, Georgia isn't the richest state in the country. In fact, until recently, the South in general was not the richer part of the country: it was the the industrialized places that fared better in material terms. California too! Slavery... and the type of economy it supported was not a good thing for most people in the South. 

 

However, there's no getting away from the fact that slavery was an evil, and that reconstruction was botched and the law continued to discriminate against blacks. Add to this the immorality of private discrimination lasting well into this century. Even those who claim that there is no ongoing discrimination against black people will admit that their slave ancestors were deprived of the most basic rights, and that they would have been much happier as free men in the least poor of African villages of the time, than being slaves in America. Can their descendants make the same claim about themselves, personally?  Would they rather exchange places with the thousands of people in Africa who want to immigrate to the U.S. ?  All the talk about being worse off because of slavery relies on a comparison with people with whom they would never make such a comparison if not for slavery in the first place. If we're talking about black people as a group, not as individuals, how can we claim that those who are currently U.S. citizens are materially worse off than if their ancestors had never been enslaved?

 

I know a lot of immigrants who began life quite poor by U.S. standards (of the time). No car, no T.V., meat rarely served for meals, a few changes of clothing each year...washed by hand. Yet, they never perceived themselves as poor because they were relatively middle-class in their own countries. And, being middle-class, they were brought up to go to school, do their homework, get a job, and so on. Today, most of them earn well above the average white person. So, their lack of material wealth did not hold them back, and their philosophy moved them forward... basically, it takes one generation to turn things around.

 

That's the solution for any individual black person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having thus assumed away the entire real world of privilege enjoyed by actually existing people, and the fact that past coercion by actually existing government has helped shaped the structure of society, you thus remove your argument from reality.

That's exactly the point. If you can posit a "clean slate" where persons of some racial group have never oppressed persons of another racial group, then the whole argument is moot, but the point is precisely that you can't posit such a state of affairs, so stop trying to use objectivism to "forget history."

 

Much of the rhetoric and dialogue surrounding racism is socialist and irrational.  I have appealed to the "forget history" hypothetical to focus on the real issue. 

 

Morality is rational self-interest.  Racism, current racism in any form is self-destructive against the racist.

 

If you are a numerologist and you hire me because of your belief in numbers, you have lost.  If I believe I am worth the money I have contracted to earn from the job I do for you we both benefit.  If there is a non-numeral person out there who has not gotten the job, and yet who is actually better than me, I can think to myself my employer is stupid.. and perhaps it is in my rational self interest not to work for this person.... or perhaps it is my rational self interest to keep to job.  I'm surely not a numerologist, and I never "played" the numerology card when I accepted the job.  Have I benefitted from someone else's irrationality?  Perhaps in this case only because I know in some sense I do not deserve the job (someone else was better) but then again that better someone might have asked for more money (they certainly should have). 

 

My rambling point is, what is clear is that racism is not in my self interest, clearly, others racism is also not in my self interest insofar as it is an irrational consideration which could be interfering with proper moral and economic decisions of my colleagues, customers, partners or employers.  I cannot deny such a form of irrationality exists... but I will not claim to be a racist nor put up with accusations of such.  Nor do I take my dealings with men to be somehow invalid because of racism.  notwithstanding someone's possible irrationalities when choosing to deal with me I am sure of the value of my work etc.

 

Racism is irrelevant to the rational.  It is an irrationality that is to be avoided for sure... but not something any rational person should carry as a burden around his or her neck when it simply is not his or hers to bear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with basic claims, and ask yourself if you're knee jerk responding to "omg tribalism!" Or if you're responding to the actual claims being made.

1. In actual history on planet earth, there were vast regimes of racial oppression.

2. This legacy of oppression has structural effects on society today.

3. Some of these effects can include benefits to white people today from the injustices done to persons of color in the past.

4. Some white people use individualist rhetoric to either downplay or deny the existence of 3, and also to assume the universality of their own experience.

Conclusion:

5. Number 4 is bad and does a disservice to individualism.

Notice that agreement with any or all of these points does not require adherence to social constructivism or Marxism or tribalism or whatever. All points can firmly fit within an objectivist epistemology and can be validated by reduction to perceptual data.

 

That's precisely the problem 2046.  That's is exactly what these people want.  They want a people's republic of the US and will not stop until it's achieved.  We will be called racist no matter what if after acknowledging these points above we start pontificating about the virtues of individualism and capitalism.  It's a losing battle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racism is irrelevant to the rational.  It is an irrationality that is to be avoided for sure... but not something any rational person should carry as a burden around his or her neck when it simply is not his or hers to bear.  

I think the point is that the effects of past racism still reverberate through today's society. So what you say is true, but it is not relevant. That you can overcome issues in no way indicates a problem doesn't exist. Still, it is relevant to know "how we got here" because it's important to recognize when rational action has been hindered and how. In a way, even this article is an artifact of past racism - she's stuck using tribalized language and diverting attention to a formless mob of "white people". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that the effects of past racism still reverberate through today's society. So what you say is true, but it is not relevant. That you can overcome issues in no way indicates a problem doesn't exist. Still, it is relevant to know "how we got here" because it's important to recognize when rational action has been hindered and how. In a way, even this article is an artifact of past racism - she's stuck using tribalized language and diverting attention to a formless mob of "white people". 

 

and it also has apparently caused you to say "how WE got here" [emphasis added]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We" there means "society at large which we're part of". I wasn't referring to any group like "whites" or "blacks" or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"WE" presupposes inclusion of "I" or "Me".

 

 

When speaking of the so called "WE" as "society at large"...

 

Do you take any responsibility (or share in any responsibility) for what a society did prior to your birth?

 

Do you take any responsibility (or share in any responsibility) for what a society did prior to your having the right to vote?

 

Do you take any responsibility (or share in any responsibility) for what a society did that you do never asked it to do and in fact did not want it to do?

 

Do you take any responsibility (or share in any responsibility) for what anyone else in society does that is product of their own volition?

 

Do you take any responsibility (or share in any responsibility) for what anyone else in society thinks or feels which is a product of their own volition and diametrically opposed to what you believe they should think and feel?

 

Do you take any responsibility (or share in any responsibility) for anything in society which is not causally linked to you, i.e. is not in any part a consequence of any of your actions?

 

 

Tell me Eioul, what actions have WE taken together?  What thoughts have WE had together?  What guilt do WE share?

 

 

So can you tell me exactly what you mean by "How did WE get here"?   and well, please explain how DID ... "WE" get "here"?

 

and just for fun how can an Objectivist use "WE" in such a manner (referring to "society at large") without it being a blatant appeal to socialism, collectivism, tribalism, or nationalism?

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How we got here" is just an expression to say "how history has led up to this point for us to live as we do now". It isn't tribalizing anything. It doesn't mean being responsible for anyone else. I didn't mention responsibility anywhere. Things people do impacts me, so I respond as I need to, that's all. It's supposed to capture a sense of traveling, and more than one person traveled the same road, namely, every single American. We all travel the road in our own way, but sometimes other people screw around with the road.

I can say we "got" here due to the way other people acted in ways I'm not responsible and share no responsibility. So I can say something like "society got this way because of racist Southern Democrats, I'm not at all responsible for them, but every person in the US has been affected by their irrationality. The effects aren't all done with yet."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How we got here" is just an expression to say "how history has led up to this point for us to live as we do now". It isn't tribalizing anything. It doesn't mean being responsible for anyone else. I didn't mention responsibility anywhere. Things people do impacts me, so I respond as I need to, that's all. It's supposed to capture a sense of traveling, and more than one person traveled the same road, namely, every single American. We all travel the road in our own way, but sometimes other people screw around with the road.

I can say we "got" here due to the way other people acted in ways I'm not responsible and share no responsibility. So I can say something like "society got this way because of racist Southern Democrats, I'm not at all responsible for them, but every person in the US has been affected by their irrationality. The effects aren't all done with yet."

 

 

Nice save.  Sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following rejects the concept "we", and racial groups, and addresses the problem as a moral one, i.e. from the view of the rational self-interest of the individual.

 

To be sure one must realize racism as such is only a "societal problem" when it interferes with the government's proper role of protecting individual rights, i.e. answering force with delegated retaliatory force in accordance with objective laws.  This is because the only valid conception of a single entity acting for or on behalf of a "society" is government, all other entities being voluntarily and privately chosen: there is only each individual and the group of individuals which have been delegated the right of retaliatory force.

 

An individual racist who does not infringe individual rights, but chooses not to deal with certain other persons for irrational reasons is acting against his/her self-interest, because it is an abdication of one's task to use reason, Man's tool of survival, and that which is necessary to determine the good, which only ever is rational self-interest.  Choosing not the hire the best person for an irrational consideration means the employer has lost the potential in the value of the person he over looked, which is self-defeating.

 

Insofar as a third party's racism has caused him to lose, it also indirectly reduces my (and everyone's) chances for prosperity.  In fact this is true of mysticism, religion, bad philosophy, lack of education, lack of self-esteem, and a whole host of other irrationalities that cripple a person's voluntary choices, stifle their own growth and thus their own ability to trade, invest and grow with others, including me.  If decades ago Steve Jobs were crippled by mysticism and decided to move to the Himalayas and live as a monk instead of playing his part developing the home computer and the mouse, I would not be better off now. It would have been in my interest to persuade him to embrace sanity, reality, and my money for his goods.

 

 

Only in THIS limited sense is racism, (like any other irrationality) when exhibited outside the context of government, a problem for each and every individual.  Each of us acting in his or her own rational self interest should realize this is a personal problem, i.e. a selfish value of having as many other people as efficient and as valuable as possible to that individual, which is to be pursued and addressed.

 

 

The Objectivist answer (as far as I can tell) is that racism is morally wrong precisely because it is not in the rational self-interest of the racist, and that racism in all its forms is in every individual's objective rational self-interest to see reduced in other people, either by persuasion of conscience, appeal to reason, or peaceful boycott of economic dealings, and by any means which do not amount to any initiation of force and do not amount to efforts which outweigh the possible selfish benefits.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EC    16

What's the purpose of all this argumentation and discussion? I don't see how it links to the actual article even if most of the points such as those made by StrictlyLogical are true (and they are). It's like your all randomly stating facts mixed with some opinion without an overall purpose from my perspective.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the purpose of all this argumentation and discussion? I don't see how it links to the actual article even if most of the points such as those made by StrictlyLogical are true (and they are). It's like your all randomly stating facts mixed with some opinion without an overall purpose from my perspective.

 

Sometimes it is easier (and perhaps more valuable) to discuss and state the true, rather than delve into the intricacies of the erroneous, warped, and irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's precisely the problem 2046. That's is exactly what these people want. They want a people's republic of the US and will not stop until it's achieved. We will be called racist no matter what if after acknowledging these points above we start pontificating about the virtues of individualism and capitalism. It's a losing battle.

Who is "these people" exactly? People who oppose racism? But racism is bad so, that should include us too, and we don't want a people's republic of the US so what now? The idea that we have to turn into Rush Limbaugh goo goos and pretend like there's no problem with racism because, well, there are anti racists out there that are statists, strikes me as a complete logic fail. Just because some people take position A and also take position B doesn't necessarily mean that in order to deny position B, you have to deny position A.

Yeah calling people racists in order to shut down debate is bad, and there are a lot of people that are against that when people try to do that sometimes. But usually when libertarians are getting called racists or labeled as ignorant of racial issues it's because they do things like use individualist rhetoric to deny actual historical and existing racism, or downplay the existence of white privilege, or just make tone deaf statements like some of the ones in this thread.

So then it's possible to acknowledge the existence of racism in whatever degree it exists without "wanting a people's republic of the US" then one should take that position, instead of denying reality altogether or putting your head in the sand. It's possible to be anti racism and anti statism, just because some anti racists are statist doesn't mean you go denying the existence of racism and it's modern day effects on the structure of society.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is "these people" exactly? People who oppose racism? But racism is bad so, that should include us too, and we don't want a people's republic of the US so what now? The idea that we have to turn into Rush Limbaugh goo goos and pretend like there's no problem with racism because, well, there are anti racists out there that are statists, strikes me as a complete logic fail. Just because some people take position A and also take position B doesn't necessarily mean that in order to deny position B, you have to deny position A.

Yeah calling people racists in order to shut down debate is bad, and there are a lot of people that are against that when people try to do that sometimes. But usually when libertarians are getting called racists or labeled as ignorant of racial issues it's because they do things like use individualist rhetoric to deny actual historical and existing racism, or downplay the existence of white privilege, or just make tone deaf statements like some of the ones in this thread.

So then it's possible to acknowledge the existence of racism in whatever degree it exists without "wanting a people's republic of the US" then one should take that position, instead of denying reality altogether or putting your head in the sand. It's possible to be anti racism and anti statism, just because some anti racists are statist doesn't mean you go denying the existence of racism and it's modern day effects on the structure of society.

 

Good points in general.  I think a major thrust of the approach being taken by persons on this thread must not be dismissed. 

 

When the issues of racism are brought up by statists, collectivists, group-ists, the "dialogue" often is often colored with invalid concepts tied to the tribalist mentality of those collectivists, i.e. "we" "them" "your people".   Insofar as "groupist" rhetoric is invalid, it CANNOT illuminate the problem of racism nor provide any moral solution to racism.

 

This is why responses to COLLECTIVISTS who raise the racism issue MUST be based in principle, on morality, and should not fall into the trappings of invalid collectivist posturing.  An Objectivist should respond objectively, and in a principled manner which is based on the morality of rational-self interest.

 

..............

 

It would appear from the language of your posts such as "individualist rhetoric" and "white privilege" that you have a deeper dispute with what Objectivism holds are the proper role of government and what constitutes individual rights and what non initiation of force is. 

 

What is you concept of "white privilege"?  Could such a thing exist purely in the private sphere of a proper society?  Should government "intervene"?

 

 

What is "individualist rhetoric"?  If morality is rational self-interest, and the individual is the sole beneficiary of morality, i.e. that the good is the life of the a self-sovereign, how can speaking of such an absolute value as the individual amount to rhetoric?  Is there "rationality rhetoric" or "happiness rhetoric" or "rhetoric about value" or "rhetoric about loving life" ? 

 

Certainly erroneous statements can be made about anything which is precious and important... your phrase implies the individual is neither of those to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is interesting to analyze the course of this discussion. One member said, "Thus, if a white person invokes individualist rhetoric ... to whitewash or downplay the existence of white privilege in society today, that amounts to the robbers, or robbers descendants, with their hands full of loot, saying "okay no more stealing...Starting now!"

When challenged about the existence of white privilege, the response was "...YOU are the problem." no attempt was made to answer with material facts, just ad hominem. Then there was a shift to red herrings and bogeymen with, "...before modern day alliance with right wingers and conservatives."

Real historical facts were presented of how white men sacrificed all they had to risk their lives in order to fight against slavery. Where were the fists full of loot? I was trying to reduce the assertion of white privilege to perception in a particular instance, but the assertion of white privilege didn't fit.

The discussion then proceeded to an attempt to establish facts without foundation and with the free use of universals. "3. Some of these effects can include benefits to white people today from the injustices done to persons of color in the past." This was just a restatement of a prior argument without providing any new validation despite repeated requests for just that. This assertion came complete with a claim that the given points can be "validated by reduction to perception. This was encouraging since that was exactly what I needed to hear. When challenged to provide this validation we read, "Just...Shut...Up." and also, a suggestion to do "some basic research." Well, I thought we were having a conversation. Besides, it had already been claimed that reduction to perception was a cinch. When prodded to get on with the explanation, the discussion turns to name-calling with "tone deaf" being spewed.

Ad hominem, "shut up" as an attempt to stifle debate without having to do the hard work of formulating an actual argument, steamrolling asserted "facts", bogeymen, implications that the discussion partner is ignorant and needs to do basic research while providing no additional facts, name-calling--these hallmarks of ignorance should jar even the one who issued them. However, as I claimed earlier, it will be difficult for such a one to be objective since to be so would require a change in world-view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is "these people" exactly? People who oppose racism? But racism is bad so, that should include us too, and we don't want a people's republic of the US so what now? The idea that we have to turn into Rush Limbaugh goo goos and pretend like there's no problem with racism because, well, there are anti racists out there that are statists, strikes me as a complete logic fail. Just because some people take position A and also take position B doesn't necessarily mean that in order to deny position B, you have to deny position A.

Yeah calling people racists in order to shut down debate is bad, and there are a lot of people that are against that when people try to do that sometimes. But usually when libertarians are getting called racists or labeled as ignorant of racial issues it's because they do things like use individualist rhetoric to deny actual historical and existing racism, or downplay the existence of white privilege, or just make tone deaf statements like some of the ones in this thread.

So then it's possible to acknowledge the existence of racism in whatever degree it exists without "wanting a people's republic of the US" then one should take that position, instead of denying reality altogether or putting your head in the sand. It's possible to be anti racism and anti statism, just because some anti racists are statist doesn't mean you go denying the existence of racism and it's modern day effects on the structure of society.

 

What do you want from me?  Do you want me to say "blacks are suffering from slavery and discrimination, past and present".  Ok, I'll say that.  Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×