Leaderboard

To answer the OP: Two reasons: 1. It's a tough issue to openly discuss since public discussions usually revolve around the media piling on someone for saying something "not correct", and more importantly: 2. Guilt. Original Sin is alive and well and the collectivists have made this the secular version of it.

Why is it so hard to talk to white people about racism? First, I object to the premise of the question. There is no such monolithic thing called "white people". Second, when discussing racism one encounters the shibboleth of white privilege. In this way one is side-tracked down a dead-end of nothingness and avoids issues of real substance. Third, those who object to the meaninglessness are ridiculed and side-lined. unreality prevails.

Let's get specific. I'm white. In what way am I benefiting from injustices done to persons of color?

The relation of "privilege" to rights is essential. The collectivist are always arguing that one mans "privilege" is a warrant for another mans "right" to something as a result. The Lee Hunsacker mentality of entitlement to the unearned is the AS concretization of this. His anger at Midas Mulligan is the result of this mentality. In the "Brothers Keeper" section of AS James Taggart expresses the sentiment "the privilege of strength" in another gives him the "right of weakness". The pride in the unearned of racism is usually coupled to the message of unearned guilt of "privilege" (social or otherwise) by collectivist. 2046 said: This is the latest in a long string of strawmen. (Despite your false attribution of same to others)Who here has denied racism? Concretize the "oppressive" "structure of society" and "white privilege" in a way that is consistent with Oist tenets and relevant to anything that someone here has made claims against. Specifically what are you arguing FOR as a consequence of these "structures" and "privileges"? What are the "privileged to do about these unearned possessions? Your spouting of arbitrary generalizations like "Rush Limbaugh libertarians" does nothing to elucidate what in particular anyone here has actually said. Who here has sought to "employ individualist rhetoric in the service of racism,"? Don't make a strawman rephrasing to something no one is saying (as your entire # 22 post). Give specific instances. The article can be summed up as collectivist rhetoric that complains that white people have the irritating habit of responding to unearned guilt trips by pointing out that "groups" are not super entities that act in a way that individuals do and they as individuals are not responsible for the actions of others.That is not a denial of racism. Given that no one here has denied racism exist, what is the point of your rant? Your whole point seems to be that people are uncomfortable discussing racism because they deny it exist and that is NOT the case here or in the article. The article specifically states: Here she uses "our history" as a means of criticizing the individual who rejects the blame for the action of other individuals. (What a "group" actually is ) She specifically ties it to wealth. Inheritance is the perfect example here. One cannot control what they inherit. Especially when it is skin color.... Just want to add this: Aleph said: And 2046 responded: Aleph did not say "putting additional stress on the idea of racism is an attempt to claim value by group association". Your beating straw men. "Why its so difficult to talk to context droppers who spout strawmen" could be a response to the claims made about the article.

There is beauty. Beauty in reality, and beauty in art. If you are familiar with Rand's views on esthetics you will understand that art has a purpose and a value to man, and what that purpose is. Irrationality as such, which is something completely distinguishable from art, fiction, and imagination, is not beautiful. There is a world of difference between celebrating life by engaging in imagination, fiction, contemplating a flower or a seascape etc. and abandoning life by choosing to live in a drugged stupor, an induced euphoria, or a blind ignorant false existence. Beauty lifts one up, helps man to affirm values in life and reality. It is something man uses to affirm and help him embrace his love of life... not something to replace it or tempt him away from it into a living death. If you ask whether or not a robot, having the same ability to provide advice, listen to your problems, give you comfort, food, and or a place to crash as a person would be a value in those respects, I would have to answer yes. BUT the value of the robot, for a rational person, is exactly because of WHAT they are, not what they "appear" to be. Insofar as a person can give you business contacts or help you fix your fence you can have a "robot" acquaintance who in those limited exact ways can be just as good as a person. A rational person however cannot escape the reality that a robot with no actual consciousness, no actual feeling or empathy, cannot "feel" what you feel when you speak to them about losing a dog, or a card game or your set of keys. It may be a subtle issue, but only evasion would permit you to value the robot in these respects the same as you would value a person (assuming you value conversation which involves speaking of shared experiences and having an empathic connection). Of course a robot could imitate such a thing, but you would always know it was fake. The same goes for admiration among peers, self esteem from mutual respect, pride and a great number of things we get from other real people which cannot be found in actuality from a non-conscious simulation. Now, of course, IF someday nonbiological systems were truly empathic and truly conscious etc, then the reality of THAT must be taken into account. I think the final answer to your friend is A is A. If he actually values reality above fiction, actually values people more than unconscious automatons, THEN that is his answer. Of course if the converse holds... I suppose that would be his answer.