White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
(06-04-2020, 08:02 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2020, 07:26 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]How many black owners in the NFL you know the guys with the power?
Such a stupid argument.
The new members of the Australian Parliament of 2019. Where are all the black people? Such a racist country!
![[Image: NewMPs165105.jpg]](https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/536%20About%20the%20House/New%20ATH%20News/NewMPs165105.jpg)
Here is the racial makeup of Australia. It's not surprising their parliament would be overwhelmingly white.
1 British 67.4%
2 Irish 8.7%
3 Italian 3.8%
4 German 3.7%
5 Chinese 3.6%
6 Aboriginal Australian 3.0%
7 Indian 1.7%
8 Greek 1.6%
9 Dutch 1.2%
10 Other 5.3%
(06-03-2020, 07:20 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2020, 06:26 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Black Americans make up roughly 13% of the population, yet they make up 75% of NFL players. Is this over sampling because GM's and Coaches hate white people? The fundamental premise of "White privilige" is that anything that has a disparate impact is inherently and institutionally racist/unconsciously bias etc. We just proved that you can have a completely OBJECTIVE sorting criteria that produces good faith results that are completely asymmetrical to the population @ large.
now do the HCs and GMs in the sport, especially at college level
someone didn't pay attention
(06-03-2020, 08:17 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]So, I think most people could agree to a form of wealth privilege. There are definitely class issues that impact opportunities. There is also intelligence privilege and beauty privilege. There is also a majority privilege. If we started analyzing every difference by trait, I am sure we could list out a ton of disparities between groups. There are benefits derived from each of these.
As to majority privilege, I get that it would kind of be odd to be raised in a society that tailors certain elements to skin tone (like dolls, action figures, movies, bandaids, etc.). I could see how this could make some people feel alienated or create a sense of longing. This is also true for every other difference between groups. Do short people long to be tall? Ugly people pretty? Etc? Some of life is luck, and it's unfortunate when people are put in those situations, but it's not something that can't be overcome. I am also sympathetic to creating some kind of atmosphere that helps reduce those disparities. That said, it's going to be difficult to adequately mitigate all differences.
I also accept some form of wealth privilege, comparatively, between whites and blacks. I am all about changing this, but, in my opinion, the way to solve this is by addressing the problems that create wealth disparities. No data suggests this is intrinsic to RACE. Strong family units (don't have kids until you're married and raise them in a joint home), Education (graduate highschool), Hard work (get and maintain a full time job). 75% of poor children who follow these rules make it into middle class (making more than 55k a year). To this end, I feel like whites are in a better position to move into middle class, because these are values that are emphasized in middle class families. I blame welfare for contributing to the degradation of poor families. I will even concede that whites had the privilege of not needing to go on welfare and were therefore insulated from this kind of deterioration to a degree (though it is growing in white communities).
I have said it before, and I will say it again, that I think the single greatest benefit of white privilege is the freedom to shed poverty without judgement. Blacks do not get this luxury. They get some form of discrimination both from ingroup ("Uncle Tom"ism) and outgroup (You're not like those other ones). Whites may get some of the former, but none of the latter. Imo, the single greatest obstacle to culture change is the threat of losing black identity. The 90's were a battle ground among blacks for the future of black identity, and progressives won. Now, the Biden's of the world get to use the "You ain't black" line as a way to encourage proper group think. I'm glad to see blacks are wising up to this with the standard Joe's, but, unfortunately, they are being heavily influenced and recruited the socialist wing of the democratic party. We will never be able to solve race issues if they believe it's fundamentally necessary to overthrow capitalism for these problems to disappear.
All that said, whiteness is not inherently a privilege. I think whites by and large to benefit from many values passed on by middle class families (this is true for higher class families, also).
The largest middle calss expansion of the 20th century was black America between 1950 ish to 1960 ish. From that time you had a drop in the poverty rate from somewhere near 87% to 47%, you had black family structure, and unemployment numbers on part with or in some cases better than whites. During the 60's and the shift away from traditional values towards collectivism, secular progressivism etc. along with the inherent structure of the great new deal is what eroded the black family unit and hence the mechanism for transferring positive values from successful family members to aspiring children.
In other words, had the left decided to just leave well enough alone and allowed that expansion to continue then Black Americans would be much more similar to their asian counterparts instead of 60 years as a permanent underclass.
(06-04-2020, 08:56 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2020, 07:20 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]now do the HCs and GMs in the sport, especially at college level
someone didn't pay attention
still awaiting the numbers unfortunately
(06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
About the part in bold: yes, it is true than one can rise up and be successful in this system. But it is also true that that is easier for some than it is for others, due to the advantages that some people are born with. When I was born white male middle class in the United States, I hit the lottery. Add to that the fact that my parents were very well educated, and had connections that I could use to advance my career, and I can see that my success is largely due to advantages I was born with. If I had not been born white male middle class American, and if I had put forth the exact same amount of effort I put out in my career, I would probably have gone nowhere. So I got where I got through a lot of luck in addition to whatever abilities I had.
The question we will always grapple with is, is it fair that some people are born with advantages? We all want equal opportunity for all, but that doesn't really exist. We are all born with different levels of opportunity. A person who is born poor or black does not have the same level of opportunity that a person who is born white middle class has. We have to admit that, and then we have to decide if there is anything we want to do about that.
(06-03-2020, 11:28 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2020, 11:10 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]FSG - just as you and others have pointed out numerous times over: The world and seemingly everyone on this forum are/were unified in their condemning of Chauvin's behavior, so too have I seen absolutely NOBODY endorse burning, looting and rioting.
We are men of action, lies do not become us.
Technically, I don't remember anyone here actually come out and support the burning, looting, and rioting. I've seen at least one poster link to an article that endorsed burning, looting, and rioting. I've seen a lot of my Leftist Facebook friends post justifications for the destruction and murder.
And as long as the peaceful protesters are giving cover to the rioters, then supporting the peaceful protests is no better than supporting the Milwaukee PD.
How far are you willing to endorse the chaos? Is a peaceful prominent Leftist posting bail for the arsonists OK with you, or not?
Was Trump promising to pay the legal expenses of followers who physically attacked people who disrupted his campaign rallies ok with you, or not?
(06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest right leaning intellectual leaders of our time. What most people don't know is, that for most of the early part of his career he was a Marxist. Why? When he looked around and saw the differences between neighborhoods, one wealthy one not the only explanation he was offered was the idea of structural inequality, racism, class struggle etc. and that's what lead him to Marx. So you're absolutely right, progressives are the only ones talking.
Look at the current situation with George Floyd. The national conversation has been completely framed by the idea of "this happened because of systemic racism, this ideology is rampant overwhelming and a serious threat to black lives. The only question is do you fight it peacefully by protesting/donating to a 'cause' or do you loot in the streets (with a wink and a nod from the Marxist overlords." With very few exceptions do you see anyone even THINK to challenge the narrative. In this vacuum of rationality, Sowell also points out that in these cases not only is no evidence given, none is asked for. The Chosen narrative of the day races around the world unchecked while hearts and minds are manipulated with false constructs.
The biggest key to the ascension of the left in the 20th century is the domination of the campuses. Whether its the leadership of the democrats or the republicans they are all similarly educated, from the same universities and were all exposed to the pathogen of leftist ideology. So when push comes to shove and you see Marxist thought being advanced on the national stage, you don't see major pushback from what should be the conservative party because in reality most of them agree with the Premise. Tucker Carlson pointed this out better than I ever could. Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, The president of the heritage foundation, the Vice President etc. all lined up behind the institutional racism narrative.
You also make a great point about the political coalition that the left has built. I think that at a certain point, the far left understood that in a nation with a GDP of 20 trillionish dollars, it was going to be hard to make a universal appeal for class struggle. With an emerging and growing demographic, it was going to be hard to maintain their previous strategy of white nationalism (look it up.) Instead they knew that in order to craft a governing majority out of the emerging electorate they were going to have to start with a base of class struggle but then slowly add on sectarian grievance to piece together disparate groups that aren't economically depressed, or not depressed enough to push them away from what would have been traditional values and ideals.
(06-03-2020, 07:20 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2020, 06:26 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Black Americans make up roughly 13% of the population, yet they make up 75% of NFL players. Is this over sampling because GM's and Coaches hate white people? The fundamental premise of "White privilige" is that anything that has a disparate impact is inherently and institutionally racist/unconsciously bias etc. We just proved that you can have a completely OBJECTIVE sorting criteria that produces good faith results that are completely asymmetrical to the population @ large.
now do the HCs and GMs in the sport, especially at college level
Are you suggesting that NFL owners are okay with signing a black player over a white player, if that player gives the team a better chance of winning, but yet won't sign a black GM/HC, even if that GM/HC gives the team a better chance of winning than a white GM/HC?
Most claiming white privilege have educated themselves as much as this woman. Buuuwwwwaaaaa!!!!
(06-04-2020, 09:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
About the part in bold: yes, it is true than one can rise up and be successful in this system. But it is also true that that is easier for some than it is for others, due to the advantages that some people are born with. When I was born white male middle class in the United States, I hit the lottery. Add to that the fact that my parents were very well educated, and had connections that I could use to advance my career, and I can see that my success is largely due to advantages I was born with. If I had not been born white male middle class American, and if I had put forth the exact same amount of effort I put out in my career, I would probably have gone nowhere. So I got where I got through a lot of luck in addition to whatever abilities I had.
The question we will always grapple with is, is it fair that some people are born with advantages? We all want equal opportunity for all, but that doesn't really exist. We are all born with different levels of opportunity. A person who is born poor or black does not have the same level of opportunity that a person who is born white middle class has. We have to admit that, and then we have to decide if there is anything we want to do about that.
The advantage you had was a strong family unit that preached hard work and education. If, by some chance, you were born into a terrible situation, but still adopted those values, there is a very high chance statistically you would have done ok. The problem is it's hard to adopt those values when they are not being shared. They are not shared because they are not part of the progressive platform. Education is, don't get me wrong, but that is primarily because it reinforces the progressive narrative.
(06-04-2020, 09:02 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2020, 08:17 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]So, I think most people could agree to a form of wealth privilege. There are definitely class issues that impact opportunities. There is also intelligence privilege and beauty privilege. There is also a majority privilege. If we started analyzing every difference by trait, I am sure we could list out a ton of disparities between groups. There are benefits derived from each of these.
As to majority privilege, I get that it would kind of be odd to be raised in a society that tailors certain elements to skin tone (like dolls, action figures, movies, bandaids, etc.). I could see how this could make some people feel alienated or create a sense of longing. This is also true for every other difference between groups. Do short people long to be tall? Ugly people pretty? Etc? Some of life is luck, and it's unfortunate when people are put in those situations, but it's not something that can't be overcome. I am also sympathetic to creating some kind of atmosphere that helps reduce those disparities. That said, it's going to be difficult to adequately mitigate all differences.
I also accept some form of wealth privilege, comparatively, between whites and blacks. I am all about changing this, but, in my opinion, the way to solve this is by addressing the problems that create wealth disparities. No data suggests this is intrinsic to RACE. Strong family units (don't have kids until you're married and raise them in a joint home), Education (graduate highschool), Hard work (get and maintain a full time job). 75% of poor children who follow these rules make it into middle class (making more than 55k a year). To this end, I feel like whites are in a better position to move into middle class, because these are values that are emphasized in middle class families. I blame welfare for contributing to the degradation of poor families. I will even concede that whites had the privilege of not needing to go on welfare and were therefore insulated from this kind of deterioration to a degree (though it is growing in white communities).
I have said it before, and I will say it again, that I think the single greatest benefit of white privilege is the freedom to shed poverty without judgement. Blacks do not get this luxury. They get some form of discrimination both from ingroup ("Uncle Tom"ism) and outgroup (You're not like those other ones). Whites may get some of the former, but none of the latter. Imo, the single greatest obstacle to culture change is the threat of losing black identity. The 90's were a battle ground among blacks for the future of black identity, and progressives won. Now, the Biden's of the world get to use the "You ain't black" line as a way to encourage proper group think. I'm glad to see blacks are wising up to this with the standard Joe's, but, unfortunately, they are being heavily influenced and recruited the socialist wing of the democratic party. We will never be able to solve race issues if they believe it's fundamentally necessary to overthrow capitalism for these problems to disappear.
All that said, whiteness is not inherently a privilege. I think whites by and large to benefit from many values passed on by middle class families (this is true for higher class families, also).
The largest middle calss expansion of the 20th century was black America between 1950 ish to 1960 ish. From that time you had a drop in the poverty rate from somewhere near 87% to 47%, you had black family structure, and unemployment numbers on part with or in some cases better than whites. During the 60's and the shift away from traditional values towards collectivism, secular progressivism etc. along with the inherent structure of the great new deal is what eroded the black family unit and hence the mechanism for transferring positive values from successful family members to aspiring children.
In other words, had the left decided to just leave well enough alone and allowed that expansion to continue then Black Americans would be much more similar to their asian counterparts instead of 60 years as a permanent underclass.
This is true, but I wonder how much these values had to ingrain themselves in black society. Before the welfare program, the ONLY way to work yourself out of poverty was to work hard. Traditions do play a role generationally speaking. You can see this with Hispanic communities. Iirc, the first generation immigrants are poor, but don't accept welfare. Second generations tend to out perform their parents, then third and fourth generations move towards welfare. Haven't looked at the numbers in a while, so I can't recall exactly.
(06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
tl;dr version: America doesn't have a race problem, America has a culture problem.
I'm in full agreement.
(06-04-2020, 09:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2020, 08:44 AM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]White privilege, the way it is currently used, is a way to create class injustice that can not be overcome in the current system. It is used in exactly the same way communists used the poor to bring about revolution in underdeveloped nations. The only way to change it is to change the system. There is a pattern going on here.
I often hear conservatives talk about the confounded alliance between gays, trans, blacks, muslims, unions, etc. Those groups do not have the same end goals. Ultimately, some of them are even conflicting. Yet, the narrative persists because each of these groups can be marginalized effectively to bring about a system change. Gays and Trans bring about sexual revolution, in that they can tear down gender and sexual norms. Feminism pushes back against familial norms, and weakens the family structure. Muslims and atheists bring about religious revolution, in that it tears down the Christian stronghold in the US. Blacks represent racial and class revolution, and can be used to attack the legal institutions. Unions represent class revolution, and are used to weaken capitalism. Illegal immigrants are an attack on sovereignty and are useful in advancing globalism. TAgain, this doesn't mean that these groups don't have legitimate grievances. Some more than others. I am saying that there is a long con going on here that takes any legitimate grievance, then ultimately warps it by saying these problems can not be solved in a capitalist society. This is not the overt narrative, but when you start looking behind the curtain, it becomes obvious.
These concepts are all talked about extensively by communist and socialist philosophers. We're not talking about new ideology here. Some of this goes back 200 years (maybe more if you're looking at concepts), but it really begins to come together in the 60's and 70's. Every one of these groups has a sub-group that is headed by thought leaders that are connected to the socialist, progressive movement. Every single one. If I wanted to spend all morning typing on this post, I could point out the socialist philosophers and activists and their specific chapters that preach the only way to change each of these "injustices" is to destroy capitalism. Those groups get more funding and a disproportionate amount of media coverage, and ultimately end up shaping the narrative for each respective marginalization. There is no incentive to solve the problems within the current system.
The great flaw in conservatism is neglecting these marginalized groups. They have failed to reach out, not because they hate all those groups (maybe a case could be made for certain groups), but because conservatives tend worry about themselves and their family, and equal opportunity under the law. This is because the evidence suggests that any person can rise up and be successful in this system (and this is largely true). They see the stranglehold by the left and see it as a waste of time to try to win their votes. But neglecting these marginalized groups has allowed the activism component of the left to have a massive influence in the narrative. Most of conservatives have no idea what community organizers do. Most of them don't understand that these organizers literally go into these groups to "educate" them on their grievances and solicit them to the cause. From an early age, people in these groups are taught one ideology only. This way of thinking is rarely able to be undone. Conservatives don't realize that their absence in reaching out to these communities on an idealistic level has created a vacuum that has easily been filled by the progressive voices. At some point, conservatives need to stop avoiding these groups and start reaching out to them. I fear it's too late.
The sad thing is that there are so many opportunities to correct the narrative. I have a program I am trying to start, but I know the pushback is going to be severe, not from the people in the community I want to reach out to, but by their "thought" leaders.
About the part in bold: yes, it is true than one can rise up and be successful in this system. But it is also true that that is easier for some than it is for others, due to the advantages that some people are born with. When I was born white male middle class in the United States, I hit the lottery. Add to that the fact that my parents were very well educated, and had connections that I could use to advance my career, and I can see that my success is largely due to advantages I was born with. If I had not been born white male middle class American, and if I had put forth the exact same amount of effort I put out in my career, I would probably have gone nowhere. So I got where I got through a lot of luck in addition to whatever abilities I had.
The question we will always grapple with is, is it fair that some people are born with advantages? We all want equal opportunity for all, but that doesn't really exist. We are all born with different levels of opportunity. A person who is born poor or black does not have the same level of opportunity that a person who is born white middle class has. We have to admit that, and then we have to decide if there is anything we want to do about that.
You bought the lie that you didn't build that.
(06-04-2020, 10:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Look at this bull [BLEEP].
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/03/...ege-929302\
Yeah, bud. Go [BLEEP] yourself and your bull [BLEEP] position.
The comments are hilarious. "Oh noes! They are coming for our fragile little white women now!" It's like birth of a nation all over again!
Ridiculous stunt, the guy doesn't even sound sincere in what he's asking.
Yeah, he's probably a troll. In the last video in that thread, he has a Latina woman do the same thing, only he has her apologize to Floyd Mayweather.
Yup, a little research and I just found it on YouTube. Seems to be some guy called Smooth Sanchez, it's some weird parody thing. The guy seems to be firmly alt-right and an Alex Jones fanboy.
Won't stop these fair and balanced news sites using it to stir up the racists in the grand old tradition of "they're coming for our delicate white women now!"
Drew Brees is getting torn apart right now because of his opinion on NA kneeling. His good guy reputation and charities may be to big and solidified to bring down but damn, I guess no one is safe. If I was famous, I’d accept a self-imposed gag order on these issues
(06-04-2020, 11:56 AM)jaglyn Wrote: [ -> ]Drew Brees is getting torn apart right now because of his opinion on NA kneeling. His good guy reputation and charities may be to big and solidified to bring down but damn, I guess no one is safe. If I was famous, I’d accept a self-imposed gag order on these issues
Yes, how dare someone defend the Flag and America. Don't they know that everyone agrees that America is the worst nation ever known upon the Earth?