Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Einherjar wrote:

Quote:

Well I remember running innto you, you were lecturing me (and others) on how the christian right were going to take over the world, and how I should be worried even in Norway where more than half of the population describe themselves as agnostics or atheists.

Gee whiz, Einherjar. I hope I wasn't lecturing. I do get a little worked up on this subject. These fanatical Christians have been politically active for more that three decades now. They now control the Congress, the White House and probably the Supreme Court. If you doubt that they haven't taken over the Republican party, read about what has happened to Arlen Specter and others in the Republican party and the Democratic party, for that matter, that have tried to resist them. It frustrates me when I try to demonstrate how organized they are and how successful they have already been and everyone responds with........."there there, no need to worry."

I hope you're right that you don't have to worry in Norway. But as I understand it, there are many leaders and populations of European nations that are quite worried. And I believe they should be.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hello Lola you incredible succubus....up late tonight?

LOL............yes, Bear.........I seemed to be, last time I checked.

0 Replies

well how delightful to come in late and pissed and find several of my favorite A2K women up and around......not to digress from the topic at hand.....

0 Replies

and the other of your favorite a2k women who are up at this hour are? Is it a full moon or something? hehehehehehe

0 Replies

Montana and ms.buns (dlowan) are stirring

0 Replies

I should go to bed, but I keep finding one more thing to comment on..........I need to shut down and stop typing.....but my brain and hands seem to have taken on a life of their own.....

0 Replies

Einherjar,

Look here for a couple of cartoons that explain why I think you should worry all the way over there in Norway.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1011395#1011395

0 Replies

Quote:

When riding the bus in San Francisco, I was pleased to notice that non-whites and whites mixed liberally there. But Blacks and Hispanics distinctly seemed to avoid sitting next to each other. The pattern was very consistent between about 20 bus lines all across town, and I'm pretty sure the phenomenon was real, not just my observational bias.

Thomas,

When lived in NYC, I worked for an a black political action organization. My assignment was at a day care center in Brooklyn in which the Blacks and the Puerto Ricans were in a constant battle for funding for programs to help their own competing groups. They didn't seem to recognize that they would get more if they found a way to co-operate. I was impressed by many of my colleagues, all black who explained that there were Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Jews and Crazy White Liberals. And they were very doubtful that members of these ethnic groups would ever agree on anything. They of course thought they were correct and the rest were......well.......... gluttonous pigs. But they really especially hated the Jews.

Prejudice definitely goes both ways.

0 Replies

Quote:

I figure you're barkin' at a cave that ain't got no bear in it.

Well now, that's a great mental image, Timber. Does this mean you think I'm a b!tch? And I might be, but I'll never tell. hehe I agree, we can't seem to look at it from the other's perspective. Too bad too.

0 Replies

Dys wrote:

Quote:

They are in a bind and see no way out other than to attack somebody, anybody and "leftwing eastern liberal "elites" give them a simple target (They are not always wrong on that account)

Yes, I agree and (yes, I agree.)

However, I'll have to argue with you that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They stand for different values and depend on different methods for living. The Republicans or those in control of the Republican Party of today believe you can legislate morality. The Dems, mostly believe that it's better for people to think, study and struggle with questions of morality and come to their own conclusions. The Repubs think everyone should think, feel and do as they're told. The Dems mostly stand for taking personal responsibility for our actions. That's a biggggggggggggggg difference and it's not the only one. But we've had this argument before. You naughty cowboy!

OK, that's my last for tonight. Good night all............

0 Replies

cannistershot, Cycloptichorn georgeob1 and Lola --

Thank you for your thoughts regarding my question about Non-White-On-Non-White racism! I probably didn't make it clear enough, but I wasn't puzzled by the phenomenon itself -- people who want to hate each other always find a reason to. I was puzzled about the mismatch between what's happening on the ground on the one hand and how the policy debate is framed on the other hand.

On the ground, a significant part of the problem -- maybe even the largest part -- is between different non-White groups, as you have observed yourself. On the other hand, almost all printed, televised, and webbed policy discussions about racism that I ever witnessed, frame the problem in terms of White versus everybody else. Where does that mismatch come from? I can see how framing it this way was appropriate in the 60s, but why isn't the discussion adapting to changes in the problem itself?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Two people arguing, in Blatham's words, "from familiarity and experiential knowledge". One said yes, the other said no.

I dont see why, as an outsider, if you're presented with such conflicted personal testimony, you shouldn't rely on data or statistics to arbite for yourself when there's a verifiable enough point of contention.

The way I often like to phrase this is: "Actually, Americans don't know any more about America than birds know about ornithology." But somehow, sometimes, this way of putting it comes across as arrogant.

Lola wrote:

Are you listening, Thomas?

Yes. Currently, while watching your argument with george and timber, I am assuming as a refutable conjecture that you, having spent most of your life with fanatic Christians, observed that all of them are Republicans. Meanwhile, george and Timber, having spent much of their lifes in the Republican party, observed that few Republicans are fanatic Christians. Both sets of observations are consistent -- unless you falsely conclude that because fanatic Christians are Republicans, most Republicans must be fanatic Christians. As I said, this conjecture is open to refutation, but I expect it to be refuted before I change my mind.

0 Replies

nimh said

Quote:

Blatham, Lola, Cyclo all in more or less gentle words told Thomas off because he should realise that sometimes, real-life experience trumps book knowledge - but their point ignored the fact that the testimonies based on real-life experience seemed to be diametrically conflicted.

No. I was speaking only to sozobe, and the point was a logical one.

0 Replies

thomas said

Quote:

On the ground, a significant part of the problem -- maybe even the largest part -- is between different non-White groups, as you have observed yourself. On the other hand, almost all printed, televised, and webbed policy discussions about racism that I ever witnessed, frame the problem in terms of White versus everybody else. Where does that mismatch come from? I can see how framing it this way was appropriate in the 60s, but why isn't the discussion adapting to changes in the problem itself?

Stories involving racial prejudice other than the classic black/white sort do hit the press when some event brings such an issue to the fore. Spike Lee's film (title forgotten) is another example.

But you are right, the more common subject of racist analysis/discussion centers on caucasian vs X, mainly african americans. I think there are simple answers for that however. As the media is largely white, it makes sense that they tend to concentrate on racism within their own cultural group (a Mexican newspaper might concentrate on Mexican prejudice against some other group). And, of course, there is the weight of history and the knowledge this problem is not yet solved.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
The logical problem presented in a string of posts like this one, responding to Thomas, is how it phrases the dialogue as Cyclo, who lives there and thus should know, versus Thomas, who talks out of stats and articles he read and, while stats are useful, should pay some kind of deference to Cyclo's real-life experience. (Did I get that more or less right?)

No, nimh, since you asked......I don't think you have it quite right from my perspective.

you wrote:

Quote:
Blatham, Lola, Cyclo all in more or less gentle words told Thomas off because he should realise that sometimes, real-life experience trumps book knowledge

It's funny you thought we were telling Thomas off. I thought we were having a discussion which was edifying for us all. And as you can see above, I didn't think Thomas should realize that real-life experience trumps book knowledge. I don't think it should. I said I thought both should be considered.

Well, I should have specified that I was referring to a specific strings of posts, namely those immediately following Thomas's, here ("but frankly, you don't live here"), here ("She has a point. Come live with the people and do it for a long time and then state an opinion. The value of statistics only goes so far. Since none of us can live everywhere, it would be a good idea to consider the experience of those people who do live in whichever region is being discussed") and here ("To argue from familiarity and experiential knowledge is not a logical fallacy. To deny such is. And our intuitions suggest this to us. [..] And cyclo's manner was not of an insulting sort.")

I did notice that after Thomas most graciously responded to these posts, an edifying follow-up discussion did indeed take place, with interesting posts by everyone concerned, which I most enjoyed. But it was on that near-collective initial reaction that I had a point to make. This was before your later elaborations; the knee-jerk reaction was apparently the same across the board (except for Soz), and it is the lack of logic in that knee-jerk reaction that I reference.

blatham wrote:

nimh said
Quote:
Blatham, Lola, Cyclo all in more or less gentle words told Thomas off because he should realise that sometimes, real-life experience trumps book knowledge - but their point ignored the fact that the testimonies based on real-life experience seemed to be diametrically conflicted.

No. I was speaking only to sozobe, and the point was a logical one.

Nonsense, Blatham. Yes, you were speaking to Sozobe - and what you were speaking about was what Cyclo had told Thomas (ie, "but frankly, you don't live here"), defending it (see above) by submitting the general assertion that "To argue from familiarity and experiential knowledge is not a logical fallacy. To deny such is. And our intuitions suggest this to us."

Now no-one can deny that "to argue from familiarity and experiential knowledge is not a logical fallacy" - of course it isn't. What the logical fallacy would be, I would guess, is to reject someone's intervention (or in your case, approve/defend someone else's rejection of said intervention) by referencing to one specific person's experiential knowledge - even while the very opposite experiential knowledge had been expressed just as much. Everyone can argue from familiarity, but since two people at that point had done so and they said the opposite thing, I dont really see how it is "a logical fallacy" to deny the inherent truth of either one of them and instead seek to find out data that would confirm which of the two expressions of experiential knowledge comes closer to verifiable truth.

Do I sound like Craven yet, going on about process and argumentation when the actual topic is of so much greater importance? Probably. But to return to the topic of this thread, I see a lot of "intuital" acceptation of any expressions of experiential knowledge and suchlike that underlines one's own points, and - if not rejection, then ignoration of comparative stories that would underline the opposite, in these post-election discussions and analyses. A very understandable intuitive human response, sure. But once reference to, "well, but listen to my fellow-partisan here, he speaks from experience (or expertise) and that to me means more than any facts or data you can come up with" becomes a standard way of reasoning or determining one's political course, rationality becomes threatened. And that's exactly what I'm fearing. In general, I see too much argumentation on the basis of expressions of belief or reference to fellow partisans' expressions of belief - the echo chamber, so to say. And I fear that a continuation of some of the irrationality of the last four years and of all the selective application of critical analysis involved could doom the Dems to another hopeless election defeat. That I don't want. To break out of its current rut, Dem supporters need to return to a far more rigorous application of rationality and break out of the echo chamber, challenging each of their assumptions on the basis of more than fellow partisans' confirmation of them. So that was the wider context to my remarks.

0 Replies

The tensions Thomas observed between the different non-white groups he observed are not materially different from those that have existed between all ethnic, linguistic, racial, or whatever groups in this country that were competing directly and locally for the next rung op on the social/economic ladder.

That is the historical pattern that has existed throughout the history of this country - from the tensions between the English settlers of Virginia and the Scotch Irish who followed them there; to those between them and the German immigrants who followed the Scotch Irish to the mid West; to the competition between the Irish and the Czechs in the early steel-producing areas of Pennsylvania; to the frictions between the Irish, Jews, Poles, and Italians in the large cities of the North; between the Chinese and everyone else in early California; to those that exist today between Blacks and Cubans in South Florida and between Blacks and Chicanos in Southern California - the pattern is the same, only the actors change. Until a few decades ago the structures of institutional racism more or less prevented Blacks from competing at all. Now that they are gone the underlying pattern emerges.

When the struggle for ascendancy is done those who have made it are generally less identified with the groups of their origin and the whole matter becomes less important. Frankly it isn't a bad process, compared to the alternatives at hand.

With respect to regional differences ----
The Black population of San Francisco has been marginalized and driven out in the very subtle and hardly noticed action of the liberal white and not-so-liberal Oriental establishment in that utterly up-to-date and politically correct city.

Perhaps Thomas in his travels in Northern California ventured across the Golden Gate Bridge to visit some of the liberal white paradises in Marin County. As he descended down the Waldo grade behind Saucilido, if he would glance off to his left he would see a somewhat rundown community nestled in the valley there - Marin City, all Black, a vestige of the shipbuilding industry that existed there during WWII and the Black workers imported from the South to serve it. Improved a bit, but still segregated after fifty years. From East Palo Alto, to Hunter's Point, to Marin City, Richmond and West Oakland; from these places to Atherton, Pacific Heights, the Marina, Mill Valley, Kentfield, the Berkeley Hills and Orinda - the ultra liberal San Francisco Bay area is far more segregated than Richmond VA, Jacksonville FL, Atlanta, New Orleans, Memphis, - almost any city in the South.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

On the ground, a significant part of the problem -- maybe even the largest part -- is between different non-White groups, as you have observed yourself. On the other hand, almost all printed, televised, and webbed policy discussions about racism that I ever witnessed, frame the problem in terms of White versus everybody else. Where does that mismatch come from? I can see how framing it this way was appropriate in the 60s, but why isn't the discussion adapting to changes in the problem itself?

I think, in very simple terms, that your observations aren't far off the mark and they do get raised on occassion. Most of the more publicized articles on racism focus on White vs. Non-whites because whites are, IMO, a bit sheepish about interjecting themselves into a "spat" between non-white groups. We also have a host of people who insist that anyone who is white is automatically a racist and anyone that isn't isn't possible for anyone that is not white to be racist (an article that speaks a little about that can be found here.). In the battle for equality it seems some want to define the word so that some are more equeal than others (all the way around).

0 Replies

Very, VERY much agree with nimh's latest post.

Thomas, what a memory you have -- I know I've talked about this, in terms of my experience in L.A., but I don't remember what I said. One thing might have been that I was disappointed and surprised at a series the New York Times published when I lived in L.A. called "Race in America" (? something like that.) I was in the midst of the very serious racism that Latino Los Angelenos were facing -- definitely a rung down from black Los Angelenos -- but the series focused almost entirely on black people. That seemed disconnected from what I was observing -- in one corner of the country, to be sure, but still.

0 Replies

Don't overestimate my memory, Sozobe -- I had forgotten it. But when I saw this avoidance pattern on those busses, it rang a bell. So I scratched my head, wondered what the bell was, and a vague memory of your post came up. Glad to hear the memory was correct, because sometimes it isn't.

And thank you all for further enlightenment on the coverage issue!

0 Replies

Quote:

Nonsense, Blatham. Yes, you were speaking to Sozobe - and what you were speaking about was what Cyclo had told Thomas (ie, "but frankly, you don't live here"), defending it (see above) by submitting the general assertion that "To argue from familiarity and experiential knowledge is not a logical fallacy. To deny such is. And our intuitions suggest this to us."

Now no-one can deny that "to argue from familiarity and experiential knowledge is not a logical fallacy" - of course it isn't. What the logical fallacy would be, I would guess, is to reject someone's intervention (or in your case, approve/defend someone else's rejection of said intervention) by referencing to one specific person's experiential knowledge - even while the very opposite experiential knowledge had been expressed just as much. Everyone can argue from familiarity, but since two people at that point had done so and they said the opposite thing, I dont really see how it is "a logical fallacy" to deny the inherent truth of either one of them and instead seek to find out data that would confirm which of the two expressions of experiential knowledge comes closer to verifiable truth.

nimh

Not to put too fine a point on something which isn't terribly important, but what I said above was exactly and completely true...I was speaking strictly to soz, and I wasn't speaking to thomas, nor arguing against him, nor arguing any position on the question to hand. I was merely pointing out that one cannot so cavalierly disregard 'knowledge' gained through proximity or experience. Pretty obviously, that is not also to say that anecdotal 'knowledge' trumps all else.

As a courtesy, the next time I tell you what my intent was in a specified post, I'd rather not have to come back and do it a second time.

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know