Political correctness is not interested in what you actually are. It is only interested in how you look. ... There is not — nor was there ever — any intention for PC to purge the human heart of racial hatred or personal vileness, though that is its ostensible purpose. Codes governing hate speech are not meant to suppress hate. They are meant to suppress speech.I would love for Sterling to sue Silver and the NBA and in discovery dredge up all the racist, sexist, and generally nasty remarks by all of the owners, staff, and players of the NBA.
And then let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If that were the case, call me crazy, but I don't think many stones would be cast.
55 comments:
And unlike other commentators who have commented on the PC and anti-speech aspect of the Sterling brouhaha, I'm not going to criticize Sterling himself, as I'm not without sin either.
Absolutely correct and Sterling has the money and perhaps the will to kill PC once and for all and it may not be a moment too soon.
Check this out!
erp,
The Princeton student (Tal Fortgang) has a quite a story of his ancestors, and I do think it rather obnoxious to be told to "check your privilege" which I imagine (perhaps erroneously) is a phrase used to stifle debate (i.e. whether or not he's "privileged," his statements either have merit or they don't), but his article is missing the point, at least a little bit, and possibly a whole lot.
Let's forget Tal and just consider me. I really am the poster child for white privilege. Being of eastern european jewish descent, my ancestors had a pretty rough time too and were also lucky to survive, they came to America at a time when there has a lot of anti-jewish bigotry (though also bigotry against Italians, Irish, Chinese, etc.), and had to struggle for a couple generations, etc., etc., etc.
But my life was definitely handed to me on a silver platter. There's no possible argument against me have been privileged my whole life in getting in and through schools, career opportunities, support of entrepreneurial activities including financial support from not only family and friends but also business partners, some of which were huge corporations.
There's no doubt in my mind if I were black, that many of those things would not and could not have happened. Asian? Yes. Hispanic? Yes. But not black. Woman? Maybe, but they are underrepresented.
I've met hundreds of other technology entrepreneurs and business owners. Not one black. I've met hundreds of investors. Not one black. I've hired many dozens of people at different points in my career. Less than 1% of the applicants were black (I'm guessing here, because I didn't have pictures of them all and didn't interview them all).
So the concept of white (and Asian/Hispanic) male privilege does exist to at least some extent. Tal and I have and will continue to benefit from that.
Why does it exist? I'm sure we'll continue to have vociferous debates here at great guys about that topic. :-)
You benefited and did something with those benefits as have millions of other sons and daughters of immigrants. My folks were well off in Albania (whatever that may mean vis-à-vis our way of life here), but my father was brought here at age 12 with his older brother because the Greeks were kidnapping boys to fight in their wars. (Don't ask for details about which war, that's what I was told). When I was a kid, I thought Central Park was the country, but we made sure our kids traveled from sea to shining sea more than once and had as many advantages as we could supply.
All of us have a story to tell. We play the cards we were dealt with more or less success. Women in my day were expected to be decorative young ladies and not bother our little heads with men's affairs.
Blacks are a tragic chapter. Slavery IMO wasn't the worst thing done to them. Things were definitely improving after WWII when the soldiers came home. I was high school and college when colored (as was the polite term then) boys were enrolled in academic and tech courses. Girls, as was the case then for most girls, were in commercial courses in high school and there were far fewer girls than boys in college classes in those days. Their progeny are the successful professionals today. Then the siren song of easy money and drugs destroyed black families, displacement from their communities finished them off. Unions did their part by blackballing coloreds as well.
If black leadership really cared about helping their "people," instead of affirmative action, they would identify the best and brightest kids from the inner cities and put them on the fast course to academic success in the same way couches identify the best athletes and then let them compete with the rest of their peers.
Sadly, they have a vested interest in the expanding status quo.
Middle class blacks, African immigrants as well as those from the Islands seem to have no trouble fitting into U.S. society at every level. We have a new young doctor from Nigeria, now an American, in our community who's a great favorite with us geezerettes because he has such charming manners.
I see no reason for people to be belittled and made to feel guilty because of their background whether privileged in the eyes of those who want to divide us or not. We all know plenty of people who had opportunities, but chose drink, drugs, laziness, etc.
Bret, I forgot, why do you think you had no black applicants? I hear the same thing from others looking to hire people and would you hire somebody solely on the basis of being black if you weren't convinced he/she was the best person for the job?
erp asks: "...why do you think you had no black applicants?"
Well, I have an idea but it might well be wrong.
I would absolutely hire a black applicant if that applicant were the best choice. I absolutely would not hire a black applicant if not the best choice. That's a typical decision for a business - hire the best applicant possible, regardless of race, creed, politics, etc.
For a big company, black applicants have additional value. Claims of diversity, corporate wide quotas (sometimes due to legal considerations), etc., mean that a big company will pay somewhat more for a black applicant than I could, because those diversity benefits have no value to me. I need technical and business expertise, nothing less, nothing more.
As a result, black applicants may realize ahead of time that it may be a waste of everybody's time for them to apply at a small company.
However, even when I was at TRW (now Northrop-Grumman) which was quite a large company, I still saw very few black applicants (though more for sure), so my explanation doesn't completely hold there.
The pool of black applicants for tech jobs is perforce small because the total black population is only 8-12% of the population depending on whom they count and in the main only middle and upper class black students could qualify. Those kids have lots of options other than tech jobs, as you say, it's a biding war for companies which need to fill their quotas.
Too bad schools don't heed the old negro college ads that said, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
Bret,
---
I'm not going to criticize Sterling himself, as I'm not without sin either.
---
To be economic in our criticisms is always a good recipe for life.
Yet, there must be some limits for such reservation. Should an ex-alcoholic never talk against alcohol, or quite the contrary?
Clovis wrote: "Should an ex-alcoholic never talk against alcohol, or quite the contrary?"
LOL (I must be in a giggly mood this morning).
I would say that the ex-alcoholic would be the last person I'd listen to about alcohol since they'd be likely to have a messianic bias on the subject. If we listened to the ex-alcoholic, none of us would drink, yet my observations tell me that most people derive a great deal of lifetime pleasure from drinking (I personally don't drink much and don't derive much pleasure from it) and it might even been beneficial to health (I'm not yet convinced one way or the other).
But I have no idea how your statement relates to my non-criticism of Sterling. Give me a hint. Do you believe I'm an ex-racist or something?
Bret,
---
Do you believe I'm an ex-racist or something?
---
I wouldn't go that far, but yoou reasoning was that you would not condemn the guy because you have done similar things in past, if I understand correctly.
I remember stealing a cup of yogurt from the supermarket shelf, opening and eating it right there, when I was 5 years old. I will still teach my kid that is very, very wrong.
Clovis wrote: "...because you have done similar things in past..."
Nope. Never told a mistress to not pose for photos with black guys or whatever.
I just meant that not being perfect in all ways (like apparently aog and Hey Skipper's wives are :-), I'm uncomfortable criticizing Sterling.
We should think about what's being endorsed in the Sterling case - if you say bad things, you should have your privately owned property taken from you.
I think it's different (and worse) than that. If you say bad things privately in an illegally recorded conversation, then the penalties can be stiff (though for an ancient billionaire, not terribly stiff).
If the NBA's bylaws support that sort of retribution (regardless of the legality of the recording), then it's a free-market thing for the NBA to impose those penalties.
My question (and Fernandez' opinion) is whether or not the PC element, even in the completely non-government domain (which this is, other than Obama spoutin' off), is over-the-top?
My opinion is that it's definitely over-the-top.
If this is the new criteria for taking of property, the entire media, the Democratic party and operatives, academics, movie stars, etc. should be among the homeless for the lies & personal bashing of Bush, Palin and many others in public and printed in newspapers and broadcast as news on radio & TV programs.
The NBA can bar Sterling from the arenas perhaps, but I doubt he's senile enough to allow them to steal his ownership of the team.
erp,
Only if the bylaws for their employment contracts support that taking.
We'll see if the NBA's bylaws actually do. They might.
Bret,
---
[...] then it's a free-market thing for the NBA to impose those penalties.
---
And I thought you liked free markets :-)
I guess we are talking different subjects. I was focused on why you would not allow yourself to condemn racist attitudes in general, not in this particular case, where you won't endorse reprovation of the guy because of other circumstances.
The fact is, the way you argue, you are bashing any comdemnation of racism anyone following PC rules may make. To which I would remark that if not every PC act is desirable, it does not mean every PC act is despicable.
AOG,
---
[...] if you say bad things, you should have your privately owned property taken from you.
---
I think that awful too. Yet, as Bret remarks above, the matter here is if NBA's bylaws allow for that.
I will still think it is crazy even if they do. Yet, as I understand, you are a great fan of making contracts as sacred as laws of nature, so are you arguing against obeying rules set in a contract now?
Clovis;
From what I have read, the bylaws don't support such an action. However, if it turns out they do, then I can't object.
But note that the people endorsing this almost certainly don't know either, so they are explicitly endorsing taking of private property for private statements.
Clovis;
If you want another example of this, this time by our federal government, read here.
SH - I started to read the article, but couldn't go on. By terminating accounts, they don't mean their assets were confiscated, I hope.
Only that the bank doesn't want their business, which is their right as long as the porn stars don't belong to a protected minority, then neither banks nor any other entity has the right to refuse all comers whether as customers, renters ...
Regarding NBA by-laws: there's probably a blanket statement about inappropriate behavior or some other lawyerly language which can be interpreted however the prevailing CW wants it to.
AOG,
---
If you want another example of this, this time by our federal government, read here.
---
I am "culturally confused" by the arguments in your link.
I was led to believe that Democrats are the mainly socially liberal forces of the US (being pro-gay marriage, pro-drugs, pro-aborts, pro-you-name-it).
Now you are telling me they suddenly got very conservative and are hunting the porn industry?
If that's true, I give up on understanding your society.
Clovis wrote: "And I thought you liked free markets"
I do and have no problem if Sterling signed a contract that obligated him to not say racist things, even in private conversations, to be subject to fines and other actions. Nobody forced him to buy the Clippers.
Clovis wrote: "...you would not allow yourself to condemn racist attitudes in general..."
I generally don't condemn individual attitudes or speech. Actions yes, and speech with the intent to incite action, usually. Collective attitudes and speech, most definitely, and I do that here a great deal.
Here's more or less my hierarchy (though I don't stick to it very well):
Government, institutional or widespread private racism - that I condemn.
Publicly stated racism, especially if the purpose is to incite widespread racism - that I criticize.
Private and voluntary associations and related attitudes that are racist (or even just likely racist) - that I disagree with sometimes but generally do not publicly criticize.
Politically Correct condemnation of nearly all speech for the purpose of stifling speech, even when it's racist speech - that I condemn.
ero;
The money wasn't confiscated, but their right to do private business was. The bank was fine with that business until the federal government stepped in and made it unprofitable. Let's be clear - no law was broken by these citizens yet the federal goverment punished these people.
Clovis;
"Now you are telling me they suddenly got very conservative and are hunting the porn industry?"
No. I simply pointed at an article the described the behavior of our Department of Justice as run by Eric Holder.
It's actually easy to understand - the Democratic Party in the USA is composed essentially of bullies and looters. The victims in this story are simply "soft targets", ones who have little chance of fighting back.
Culturally the Modern American Left has no culture except "we know best and you must do as we say". All those stances you mention are purely rhetorical devices, to be used or ignored as seems useful at the time. They don't mean a word of it and you should not take it seriousl.
Has it been confirmed what caused the banks to do this (and that they actually have done this).
I'm under the impression we're still at the "allegedly" stage.
AOG,
---
The victims in this story are simply "soft targets", ones who have little chance of fighting back.
---
OK, supposing you are right, bullies and looters still act by motivations. I don't see any behind this story.
---
All those stances you mention are purely rhetorical devices, to be used or ignored as seems useful at the time. They don't mean a word of it and you should not take it seriousl.
---
I don't know if you are talking about the pols only or the everyone in the MAL.
I can believe almost every politician is that cynical, but I most common people I've seen around, including the ones you comment about here, look to really believe all that stances. Are you telling me they really are all cynicals? And are you sure you are using the same bar for them as you would use for everyone else?
AOG,
BTW, I would like to answer a question you asked me the other way, on how steve Jobs would be using his billionaire powers to bend the law to his benefits.
Please, take a look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/business/steve-jobs-a-genius-at-pushing-boundaries-too.html?hpw&rref=technology
So, is it your good idea of free market one where your employer can decide if you can go to other jobs or not?
Ironically, it is the same govt. antitrust laws you despise that were used to stop such a scheme.
I don't think that, were Jobs not behind this scheme, he would be much less of a billionaire - he would probably need to pay higher salaries to keep the guys to whom he was forbidding better bids, but nothing that would hurt Apples shares I guess.
The point is, if he is the poster boy for good billionaire behavior, what to say of the more bad-guy-style billionaires?
I wonder if any such evidence can impact your views, AOG.
Clovis;
For the stances and rhetoric, I mean the politicians and public figures. The rank and file believe those things because the leaders tell them to do so. For one big example, there was the phrase (promulgated by the MAL) that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". That was fine when Bush was President, but now it's racist to dissent from the Obama Administration. I know plenty of ordinary Democrats who had no problem with this fundamental shift. That tells me they never really believed it. There are plenty more examples (such as, the outrage aout "misogyny" when Hilary Clinton was criticized in her Senate race, vs. what happned to Sarah Palin).
is it your good idea of free market one where your employer can decide if you can go to other jobs or not?
Sigh. Let me repeat myself for the nigh-uncountable time - I hold free markets to be the least worst alternative, which is very different from holding all of its results as "good". You are begging the question, inserting your viewpoint (with which I disgree) in to the structure of the question so that any direct answer from me would be inaccruate (the "when did you stop beating your wife" style question).
In this case, it is not the current employer who is deciding if you can go to (some small set of other jobs) but the prospective employers. Is it your view that, say, Google, cannot decide to not hire someone that you (or some apparatchik) thinks they should hire? Jobs had no ability to force Google to not hire someone, it was a purely voluntary agreement. If this is wrong, who should decide who Google hires, if Google is not allowed to do so?
I don't much like it, but to repeat myself yet again (because it just doesn't seem to ever reach you) I condier the alternative (government control of hiring) to be even worse.
Let me state again, this is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.
Let me also state I consider this a very trivial abuse. I work in this industry, I've interviewed at Google, and I really cannot bring myself to care about this.
he [Jobs] is the poster boy for good billionaire behavior
Quote, please. To follow in the style of a commentor here, are you man enough to own up to your false accusation?
AOG,
---
You are begging the question, inserting your viewpoint (with which I disgree) in to the structure of the question so that any direct answer from me would be inaccruate
---
The amazing thing is that I supposedly did all that without not even I realizing so. I must have quite a treacherous mind.
---
Jobs had no ability to force Google to not hire someone, it was a purely voluntary agreement.
---
Of course it was a purely voluntary agreement, it helped both. Being such big players in their fields, they were making sure no bid wars for workers would happen. Such war would be not beneficial to the companies, but for sure they would be for the employees. Then what happens to all that talk about competition being the magic behind capitalism? The game got rigged. And, that's the important bit, it got rigged purely by free market actions. To which I draw attention, for the nigh-uncountable time, to my point about the potential for absolutely free markets to become feudal systems.
---
I don't much like it, but to repeat myself yet again (because it just doesn't seem to ever reach you) I condier the alternative (government control of hiring) to be even worse.
---
I guess you are giving me the "when did you stop beating your wife" style question now.
At no moment I hinted at the govt. getting hiring decision over companies, did I? I just pointed to the antitrust law making what looks like a good service to society - remembering that we had past discussions where some here defended it hardly had good impacts whenever used.
---
Let me also state I consider this a very trivial abuse. I work in this industry, I've interviewed at Google, and I really cannot bring myself to care about this.
---
Of course you don't, since you did not work for them, you were not one of the employees potentially losing opportunities because your boss decided you were his serf.
I wonder if a colleague of yours, in the position above, would have the same opinion.
---
Quote, please. To follow in the style of a commentor here, are you man enough to own up to your false accusation?
---
You are one for keeping grudges, aren't you? At no moment I declared you were the one who said that about Jobs, hence your comment above does not apply. Keep that grudge for when you can really use it.
Clovis;
The amazing thing is that I supposedly did all that without not even I realizing so.
No, it's a natural result of not considering other viewpoints.
Let's note that competition in the market place does not consist of just 2 or 3 companies. The "game" isn't rigged, as I noted there are many other companies and people can form new ones.
At no moment I hinted at the govt. getting hiring decision over companies, did I?
Yes you did. "it is the same govt. antitrust laws you despise that were used to stop such a scheme". That's precisely the government reaching in to control hiring decisions.
I wonder if a colleague of yours, in the position above, would have the same opinion.
Yes, actually. I spoke to a couple of Apple employees and this came up and no one cared. We rapidly moved on to talk of more important things, like what's the best whiskey you can get in Ireland.
At no moment I declared you were the one who said that about Jobs
Then why ask me about it? How am I to know when the quotes you ask me about are mine or just random ones that don't apply to me?
AOG,
---
No, it's a natural result of not considering other viewpoints.
---
Ouch, that was unfair.
We've agreed on very little in many months of chats, and yet you are probably the person I've directed most of my questions up to now. The fact that I may not immediately agree, or understand, your viewpoints does not mean I do not consider them.
---
Yes you did. "it is the same govt. antitrust laws you despise that were used to stop such a scheme". That's precisely the government reaching in to control hiring decisions.
---
I hope you at least agree there is a gray area here. The govt is not telling them who, how or when they should hire. It is just telling them it is not OK to conspire to stiffle the dynamics of salaries. Do you really believe this is an unjustified abuse of govt power?
---
Yes, actually. I spoke to a couple of Apple employees and this came up and no one cared. We rapidly moved on to talk of more important things, like what's the best whiskey you can get in Ireland.
---
I see, you probably had too many whiskey shots to actually think clearly.
---
[Clovis] At no moment I declared you were the one who said that about Jobs
Then why ask me about it? How am I to know when the quotes you ask me about are mine or just random ones that don't apply to me?
---
When I was a kid at school, the teacher would tell me this is about context.
Steve Jobs was a public persona very well regarded by everyone. It is widely known he has set standards. He is taken as a role model in just so many levels. Hence, when I referenced him as a poster boy, it should be pretty clear I was not necessarily saying you explicitly said so. And I really don't think this is my mistake as an English outsider.
Clovis;
I hope you at least agree there is a gray area here.
I hope you at least agree that if it's a grey area, it counts as a hint.
Do you really believe this is an unjustified abuse of govt power?
Another leading question because it omits scale. For instance, a apparatchik using his credentials to get an extra meal from a government contractor is an unjustified abuse of government power, and so is creating a deliberate famine in the Ukraine. I do think this action was an unjustified abuse of government power worse than the former and not as bad as the latter.
As for Jobs, he's not my poster boy. I would say, however, he's a better poster boy than Hugo Chavez, who is much admired among the Modern American Left. I find that far more inexplicable than admiration for Jobs.
AOG,
I must tell you, reading your answer above I thought it was Erp writing it.
Delusional and unrelated topics wrapped up together, missing the whole point of the initial conversation. Gosh, age is getting you faster than her.
Ah, that's what you mean when you say you do consider other viewpoints. You just consider them delusional.
And now we have the rule that if I respond to more than one of your questions in a single comment, it's a sign of dementia.
"Shut up", he explained.
AOG,
Really?
Hugo Chavez, Ukraine and Steve Jobs all in the same box in a comment about antitrust laws?
At least you are consistent on invoking only dead guys, I give you that.
Um, you invoked Steve Jobs. If you can simply bring up someone other people admire for a rhetorical point, why shouldn't I do the same?
I take it then you don't want me to provide context for my statements. I seem to recall you complaining when I didn't...
AOG,
I only wanted to answer a question yourself posed in the near past, where *you* invoked Steve Jobs.
I get the impression that, seeing yourself in a not so good position in this discussion, after being contradicted by your own chosen example, you digress: the topic needs to go to Hugo Chavez, Ukraine, whatever. See how you not even tried to counter my point, but only waived it away with another digression about your drinking buddies. Take that phrase you gave me:
"Let me also state I consider this a very trivial abuse. I work in this industry, I've interviewed at Google, and I really cannot bring myself to care about this."
So, why to make an argument if you can only declare you don't care? I believe I am the one being shut up here.
Clovis;
You brought up Steve Jobs. I commented on him only in response to you.
My impression is that you are the one who sees himself in a bad position and therefore has to resort to claims of delusion and dementia.
"after being contradicted by your own chosen example"
Um, no. I wasn't contradicted by any of my examples. That was you, for instance with regard to Apple employees.
"why to make an argument if you can only declare you don't care?"
To answer your specific question - " is it your good idea of free market one where your employer can decide if you can go to other jobs or not?".
Have I misunderstood you all along? Are you not actually asking questions but simply using that grammatical form to make rhetorical statements? If my answers are interfering with your enjoyment of this weblog, I can stop.
AOG,
---
To answer your specific question - " is it your good idea of free market one where your employer can decide if you can go to other jobs or not?".
---
I don't think an answer like "I don't care" actually qualify as an answer. Not a meaningful one at least.
---
Have I misunderstood you all along? Are you not actually asking questions but simply using that grammatical form to make rhetorical statements?
---
As I am making sincere questions to someone who is providing only rhetorical answers, that turns out to provide as much information as if I were doing only rhetorical questions. So it turns out you may be a bit right here...
Whatever. You could scroll up to my comment at May 3, 2014 at 2:28 PM for long detailed answer, or you could pretend that "I don't care" is all I wrote. Your choice.
AOG,
But I've been complaining of your long detailed answer too.
Look how you've elected a straw man as argument:
"I don't much like it, but to repeat myself yet again (because it just doesn't seem to ever reach you) I condier the alternative (government control of hiring) to be even worse."
So, you pose complete freedom of the market versus complete control of it by government, when I think it is fairly clear I am not interested in defending a socialized economy here. I am just pointing to how some level of regulation was needed to (at least try to) protect the market from self-closure by too big players.
And when I pressed you on the matter, you said you don't care. OK, I get you don't care, but that does not enlighten me a bit on why should I not care too. Neither me nor many of other citizens in your country who look to agree with antitrust being applied in such cases.
I don't think it's a straw man. You asked if I thought it was an unjustified abuse of government power and I answer yes, I think it is. While this specific case isn't full control of hiring decisions, the basis on which it was made seems to justify such in the future. What, in your view, prevents that given the basis for this intervention? I have a clear rule which is enforceable - don't intervene in adult consenting relationships. History shows again and again that if you relax that, you get the encroaching regulatory state we have here today, because there's always one more little offense that requires a little bit more goverment intrusion.
Therefore I consider this intervention to worse than the problem it solved.
"I think it is fairly clear I am not interested in defending a socialized economy here."
I don't think that's clear at all.
As for straw men, let's consider examples such as "your employer can decide if you can go to other jobs or not", and "your boss decided you were his serf". Those, to me, are clearly rhetorical points intended to support socializing the economy.
AOG,
---
Those, to me, are clearly rhetorical points intended to support socializing the economy.
---
To repeat your own phrase, I don't think that's clear at all.
In fact, I am pretty sure I did not mean that when stating those phrases. I also wrote very explicitly that "I am not interested in defending a socialized economy here".
But if you decide now what my own arguments are, I better sit down here and watch you discussing with yourself, at least I won't waste my energy typing.
I didn't decide what your arguments are, I expressed my personal opinion of your rhetorical points.
If why I take them to have that meaning isn't clear to you, then we different opinions. Welcome to the Internet. That kind of thing happens here.
AOG,
---
I expressed my personal opinion of your rhetorical points.
---
No, you clearly went beyond that by stating my points were "intended to support socializing the economy". You are attributing intentions to myself that I explicitly denied.
Sure this kind of things happen in internet, just because people can type does not mean they can reason. "I type, therefore I troll" is our Zeitgeist.
No, that's the point of the "to me" phrase. That qualifies the following as personal opinion.
NPR backs erp's view.
aog, I don't long for segregation, I think it was a disgrace, but I think what we have now deliberately keeping people in custodial care by doling out the modern equivalent of colored beads and fire water in order to maintain power over them is far worse and what I long for is the day when all kids grow up in a family and community that loves and supports them.
I have a friend here in Florida who's my age -- fast approaching 80. She grew up in rural Florida and went to a segregated school only a few miles away from my home. She is a lovely woman, well-spoken and well educated -- her children and grandchildren are professionals.
If you think I'm conservative, you should hear her, especially her take on today's schools, welfare and pop culture in general and she's far from the only black person who grew up around here who thinks like she does.
PS: If NPR is starting to agree with me, perhaps the recent blue moon was a heads up that times, they are a changing.
I wonder how long it will take for Erp to tell us how she longs for the good old times of Apartheid in South Africa too...
I wonder how long it will take you to learn to read the English language with comprehension. So far a lot of your responses are to things not said nor inferred nor implied.
Hey, there it is Erp mad at me. For the record, I was only teasing you, it looks like it worked.
What worked?
erp;
I know, but I did find it amusing to have NPR chime in that way on the subject. I think we agree that segregation was a bad state, but it's unclear if the current "cure" is any better for anyone (except morally preening upper middle class progressives).
Clovis;
Don't you mean how long it will be before NPR is longing for the good old days of Apartheid? It's their headline, not erp's.
AOG,
---
I think we agree that segregation was a bad state, but it's unclear if the current "cure" is any better for anyone (except morally preening upper middle class progressives).
---
I believe the present situation is better not only for "morally preening" progressives, but for anyone who believes in a moral setting where every human being should be equally important in the eyes of the law.
You do not need to be a progressive to fit in the above category.
for anyone who believes in a moral setting where every human being should be equally important in the eyes of the law
No it's not because we are from achieving such a state. Maybe someday we'll achieve that, but it's certainly not the case in the USA today. Otherwise universities wouldn't be fighting to keep race admission policies in place.
Post a Comment