A Dialogue on the infamous “N” word

I'm hard of hearing, but will check it out. If I can't get it, will report, maybe you can summarize.

I have a friend whose son, white, now later 40's, liberal, far as I know as this was a while ago, and he disliked Chris Rock, but I didn't know who he was talking about, me no tv. Later I read some of what Chris Rock said, where? what? I don't remember, but thought he was good.

Back later.

Well, I guess I see what you're saying, Arg, but what is your point exactly? Guys like Karl Malone would probably agree that the "psyche" is definitely involved as a part of the problem. He seems to think that some blacks are looking in the wrong place for a solution. This is, presumably, in part due to a certain psychological state of mind.

Do you agree with his suggested "solution" to the problem? Or are you making a different point?

This is a reply to an older post.

It is unlikely I will ever use the word 'nigger', it would be so out of context. I didn't live in south LA like my white ex (J) did, though I did live in Venice near Oakwood pre any gentrifying. J wrote a full length play on south LA in our first years together, and I liked it, and I was always picky. At some point he showed it to a known black actor allied with his university, who called it racist. I didn't get that from it; he was talking about his neighborhood, and used 'nigger' in dialogue between characters.

That was a year's work down the drain.
Guess who was paying most of the bills back then, though my benefits when I changed jobs and his savings as a teen doing odd jobs got us a downpayment on a house.

I won't argue with that.

There are no easy solutions, The call for self reliance is not a new ideology. You can even go back to W.E.B. DeBois who the co-founders of the NAACP and who was one who called for separate but equal and considered ok

I will not even pretend that I have one. But I know that before any answer can be found we need to be in a better state of mind. A value of self worth needs to be installed and established.

But I do have one question. Is it necessary to reshape our imagine, not so much for others but to our own youth?

It's ideology vs pragmatism.

Not quite sure what you're asking here, Arg. Did you mean to say "image?" Imagination?

LOL yep

I agree with you that liberals sometimes screw up...and make things worse for people they think can use a boost.

But it is my opinion that "people who can use a boost" will a hell of a lot better with the help liberals offer...than they will with the advice someone like Williams is offering.

I'm NOT a liberal, but I do champion an agenda that supports safety net programs.

Don't allow anger with the system to cause you to forget who your real friends are.

Well, Frank, I don't think any of these authors, or "non-liberals" in general, think otherwise. The question is when does "help" become "harm?"

Sowell, for example, said:



It's the "change" here that's being objected to, the part in bold. Subsidizing unwed pregnancy, etc. Obama said the same: Many of these "welfare" programs are "poorly designed."

I read somewhere that of 71 various "welfare" programs, only 1 required that the recipients even attempt to look for work. Other programs "penalize" (and/or eliminate any incentive) a person for working.

What easier way for a young, perhaps rebellious, young teenage girl, who wants to be "on her own," to accomplish her immature goals than by getting pregnant, then applying for welfare benefits so that she can get her own place and be "independent?"

It doesn't "liberate" the girl. It tends to "enslave" her, to limit her future options, and lead her to depend on the government for the next 20 years.

I'm sure you've heard the old adage:

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

The problem with government funded programs are that they are too often bureaucratic oriented and are interested in numbers (quotas) then individual help.
It's done that way because if numbers aren't met funding is cut, no longer allocated.

-

Dr. Thomas Sowell, who is an extremely learned and intelligent man, makes this very point in the following short clip, Arg. Basically, he's saying that "failure is rewarded," and that many of these programs serve to keep blacks in poverty, rather than help elevate them from it




But it's just one of many factors that concern him. . There are a number of videos at youtube in which he articulates his views, and the reasons that lead him to the conclusions he draws. The following one is rather dry, and may not be "interesting" enough to hold the attention of some, but it does give an indication of the depth of his research on the issue of "culture."

clutches her throat, this is about Sowell?

Heh, Jo. What does that mean? Is "Sowell" a bad word to you? Have you ever really listened to what he says, and his reasons for saying it?

No, it's not "about Sowell." He's one man, with his own views. Others may agree or disagree with him. But, for those who "disagree," I would be interested in hearing their reasons why, and not just a rejection of him and his views based on pre-conceptions, derived second-hand.

I don't know, of course. I may be more sympathetic to people who argue against him, but I don't know the playing field.
Yes, Sowell is a sort of bad word to me.
No, I haven't read him.

Is liberal a bad word to you?

I appreciate your honest answer. There are many forms of "prejudice" that guide people which have nothing to do with race. My experience, for example, has been that many of those who most loudly demand "tolerance" from others are themselves EXTREMELY intolerant. Go figure, eh?

I'm straightforward, often wrong or confused, some times right, but I wend my way.

I appreciate the same.

And yes, go figure - sigh.

As I think I've made clear, I don't think any word are bad per se, but I know that's not really what you are asking.

But, that said, the meaning of the word "liberal" has changed quite a bit. I don't think there are many "true" liberals amongst those who claim the title today. One who was considered a "liberal" in the 18th and 19th centuries would most likely be called a "conservative" today.

Traditionally, liberals were associated with advocating values such as religious toleration, low taxes, extended suffrage, freedom of the press, equality before the law, the promotion of natural rights, and limited government that focused on the preservation of life, liberty, and property.

I don't belong to any political party. I don't have much interest in politics, really. I do have my personal values, and I would say that many of my values differ from those that I perceive to be held by many who call themselves "liberals" today. To that extent, we disagree. They are not "bad people," just people with values that often differ drastically from my own.
.

I'll get back later, still interested. We may be in opposition.
I first said apposition, by mistake and fixed it.

So, who is is that in your avatar?

I dont see much difference in values across the spectrum, what I see is a difference in opinion on how to get to the good life. For instance both D's and R's agree that things are not going well for blacks...R's tend to think that the solution is for blacks to stop thinking of themselves as helpless victims and get off their asses and try to do something with their lives where D's tend to think that the answer is to celebrate the black victim story some more and to give them more money/resources. But all agree on where blacks are now and were we want them to go, there is no difference in values.

Long long ago the conversation was about how to keep niggers in their place, under whites. No one talks like that. So far as I know no one thinks like that, now we are shooting for the opposite, how to get blacks participating more, producing more. We all agree.