News of the day

Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish.  Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail.  And that's your punishment for being racist. But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.   The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist. Cheers Jim!

(as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent),  - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish.  Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail.  And that's your punishment for being racist. But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.   The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist. Cheers Jim! (as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent),  - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm.

Which is exactly why I think racism in the United States is worse today than it was in the 1960s. Anybody who tries to talk about how to fix it is usually deemed a "racist" themselves. And not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish.  Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail.  And that's your punishment for being racist. But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.   The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist. Cheers Jim! (as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent),  - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm.

That is interesting, though my life experience has not led me to that conclusion (which is not to say I dismiss your thought-perhaps the word *everybody* is the only word I take exception to).  In my father's youth, he and his brothers/friends fought old school with their fists against black youth, though his impressions were that these battles were as much turf wars more than racial hatred....and there was white on white/black on black jousting too.  It was a very poor neighborhood equal parts black and white.  It was a product of that time and not something he carried forth into his married family life or passed to his kids.  By my youth, growing up in the 70s/80s in a different neighborhood there was none of that.  I had mates who were white/black, kids from India, Russia, Vietnam, probably others.  NONE of those attitudes did I detect in my peers.  I can't remember any malice that was based on that kind of hatred occurring around me personally.  Now perhaps it is coming back.  I know some kids now who talk about racial tension in the same schools I went to.  But I honestly do not remember it.  Living in a very diverse neighborhood now (a mix of white/black/hispanic) I still have no malice based on these differences.  I do have a problem with crime, committed by anyone, and I see that as a completely different issue.  Some of the best friendship of my life were people who were from a different country, and they have been fascinating and wonderful.  Filled with learning and yes....amazing food from the Indian and Vietnamese kids parents! 

So perhaps I've always lived in a bubble?  Or just got lucky.   

Good posts tonight.


Edited by Finnforest - May 22 2010 at 22:19

Henry Plainview wrote:   horsewithteeth11 wrote:  If society determines that being prejudice against people on the basis of race is bad (and I would assume that's true in this country), then businesses that exhibit those practices will go out of business. And when, exactly, would black people be able to eat at any restaurant they want in Alabama without the Civil Rights Act? I know this is going to sound offensive, but it's easy for us to be cavalier about this sort of thing when we're white...

As non-white, I'd say you're right.

Edited by KoS - May 22 2010 at 23:44

 

jplanet wrote: Wrong assumption - people would throw minorities under a bus in a heartbeat. When they can get away with it, they do it. If it were freely allowed, millions would be denied essential goods and services in their daily lives, many realtors wouldn't show them apartments or houses, grocery stores would turn them away. It would be a nightmare, and people in the US have proven this before when given the chance.

You're exaggerating just a teensy bit. Yes, banks redlining neighborhoods was a terrible thing to do, but I think that was more about poverty and loan delinquencies than racism. Do you seriously believe that if the Civil Rights Act was repealed, minorities wouldn't be able to get groceries anymore? America is not the same as it was in 1930, people would get pissed if that happened again. Just like I haven't killed any Native Americans lately. And holy sh*t we elected a black President!

Finn, if you truly are 100% comfortable with all people from all cultures, then yes, I would say you are an exception. I cannot say that I am, although that is in a large part due to the practices of other cultures. However, I think that being friends with ethnic people in your neighborhood doesn't count as overcoming the brain's inherent conservatism and xenophobia. They're right there, xenophobia is about people who you don't know.

And while we're talking about government...

Edited by Henry Plainview - May 23 2010 at 00:46

horsewithteeth11 wrote: Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish.  Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail.  And that's your punishment for being racist. But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.   The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist. Cheers Jim! (as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent),  - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm. Which is exactly why I think racism in the United States is worse today than it was in the 1960s. Anybody who tries to talk about how to fix it is usually deemed a "racist" themselves. And not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away.

 

Yup Brian, that's exactly what they want......they want to go back to racial lynchings and dividing restaurants.  Another nice worthless provocation, you're on a roll. 

You're pretty good at smug yourself.  His "question" wasn't a question and does not deserve a response.  Like his post of a few days ago, its simply an attempt to insinuate a large portion of the country is racist.  It's a non-starter for conversation after we've had some pretty good exchanges here the last couple of days.  I will not answer his questions that start from the perspective that I'm evil.  And I'm not talking about Rand here...but general conservatism in the public.  I for one do not support decriminalizing institutionalized racism if that's what you are suggesting/asking.  

Edited by Finnforest - May 23 2010 at 09:21

True, I'll try to work on that.  

Well, no reason why we can't have a civilized and spirited debate.

You may not be a racist personally but there are lots of racists amongst  the teabaggers.  In fact they are just a division of the Rupugnican party.  When the Democratic Party stood up for civil rights it didn't take long before the racist democrats became Republicans. 


But this is New of the day:
Arkansas: Legacy of Talk Radio, FOX Fraudcasting, GOP and Tea Party Hate, Yet Again. Two Officers Dead. "Man Who Shot Police Had Antigovernment Views." He Used an Assault Weapon by the Way, Which Obama Said He Would Ban in the Campaign, But is Now Silent About So as Not to Offend the NRA. We Have Had Many Killings in the Last Few Months by "Anti-Government" FOX and Limbaugh Influenced Sort of Domestic Terrorists. But They are All White "Christians," So They are Considered Criminals, Not Terrorists. So, if You Swear by Christ, You Are Never a Terrorist, Because You Represent a Voting Block? "Mark Potok, who directs hate-group research at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said Mr. Kane had not been in the group’s database before Thursday. But he said that was not surprising, given the “explosive growth” in the antigovernment movement in recent years. With 363 new groups in 2009, there are now 512, Mr. Potok said."


Edited by Slartibartfast - May 23 2010 at 10:35