Affirmative Action

Forums: Race, Affirmative Action, Politics, Racism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

No, I am talking about anyone who believes in genetic superiority of a race (in this case white).

KKK fits, but so do those who hope in vain for a "great white hope" in boxing for example. They, while not being as criminally extreme as the KKK are seeking genetic validation of racial superiority.

As I said, you mixed up Noah's argument and his basis for making those claims. Can you point out were it was that Noah claimed that whoever he claimed to be racist or a white supremacist believed in this 'genetic' doctrine?

You just offered what is your definition of a white supremacist which has little to do with what Noah and plenty of other people equate to white supremacy in a overall context of wanting to preserve a more privileged or advantaged position.

As I said, you are hung up on a word, violating the very criteria and principles - aka rules (I can only assume) - that you say are important.

What that is my friend, is semantics by any other name. Again, the principles you described as being out-of-order (or whatever you word of choice would be by extent or degree) - i.e. "mixing up other people's arguments and attributing things to other posters that they didn't say" - reflect on how you have certainly violated them and promoted your own... your own definition of white supremacy as you, apparently, have us all ascribe it to Noah or pretend that your genetic take would be the only definition of it.

You have taken offense to a word, not to mention a word defined very differently than you have done here. Below would be, IMO, Noah's working definition of it which, again, at least to some degree, not at all out of consert with certain schools of thought; and, by its very construction, qualifies what and who exactly "fit" the label.

Frankly, any one who "fit" the definition below or rather makes those 'rationalizations' are the ones (by definition) that Noah called white supremacist. Now, if you want to say he called you or anyone else that without justification and you are reacting out of more than just a knee-jerk response as if to say, "Oh! I can't believe you called me a 'bad' word!".... then I would hope that you can say on what basis by virtue of his definition (below... or throughout) that you do not fit that mode of thinking/belief.

Noah's definition/description of white supremacy:

Quote:

The belief of white supremacy is mainly the product the convergence of historical propaganda, to rationalize the exploitation of blacks for economic gain, and the reality of white dominance of the world economically and militarily today. I believe that when one accepts the proposition that the Individual is the primary determining force in that individual’s life outcome then it is easy to conclude that the superior individuals raise to the top, while the inferior occupy the bottom. However, individuals come as members of races or ethnicities. Thus, if individuals of one race are disproportionately poor, it logically follows that that there is something endemic (genetic) to that race that produces inferiority of outcome.

Thus, when whites look out at the world, that is dominated by wealth and power held by people and nations that are in their image, it gives subconscious acceptance to the old racist propaganda of the past, concerning black inferiority.

The only time he spoke in terms of genetics was to describe or deduce what he feels those who subscribe to white supremacy doctrine (in a broad sense) - simply whites over blacks or whites on top, so to speak. Abraham Lincoln amongst others is on record for being in favor of white supremacy in the social context, regardless of the 'genetic' implications. I don't think I need to reference his words. Suffice it to say that I don't think he wore a white sheet nor do I think he had to validate himself via some symbol of a "great white hope".

You have certainly not come close to any semblance of the idea Noah presented.

Quote:

I never said that ALL white people are racist. I said that most white people believe in white supremacy as a rational conclusion of the gaps in this world between whites and blacks. Hence, I concluded that this rationalization made them racist.

I recognize cannot and should not look for overt and explicit racially tinged rhetoric that concludes white supremacy. However, when whites say things like, “blacks should work hard like everyone else”. Implicit in this statement is that black problems economically are the result of not working hard [as white people work]. Which infers laziness being endemic to black people. Also, when one sees the black unemployment rate being 2 1/2 times the rate of whites, the reasons given by most whites are never rooted in economics or discrimination; rather, it is rooted in blacks unwillingness to work...

I think that lays out pretty plainly what he (and, again, others) have identified as components of a white supremacy ideology. Those quotes come from the Racism cured or only in temporary remission? thread.

[URL=http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters/1566_ch1.pdf]Page 9 & 10 of this *link* sort of speaks to the rationalizations that Noah says amounts to belief in, complicity with and/or adherence to white supremacy. Please note this statement within: [b]With traditional racism discredited as an ideology, few people now blamed the "deficits" of blacks on genetics or biology. More fashionable was some version of "cultural deprivation". [/b][/URL]
I know I've heard those kinds of arguments plenty of times, of course, from people who would swear they are not racist and would say all those 'good' things. Well, I believe matters are judge more by actions than by words... and these boards and the words expressed reveal the extent of the actions people say they profess to make or see as necessary. So, in that sense primarily and, perhaps, in that sense only, is it important as to what people actually say.

It is not enough to say I'm not racist, etc. because I don't believe in 'biological' supremacy...

Quote:

White supremacy is an historically based, institutionally perpetuated system of exploitation and oppression of continents, nations and peoples of color by white peoples and nations of the European continent; for the purpose of establishing, maintaining and defending a system of [white] wealth, power and privilege.

I think you know and have to admit that that is closer if not the exact definition Noah was using. Nowhere in there is there talk about 'genetics'... Now refer back to the previous link.

Quote:

Incorrect, he simply decided to call the entire forum white supremacists. Even the people who agreed with him in large part.

Okay... feel free to site the post that said ALL, EACH, EVERY - aka this ENTIRE - forum = white supremacist. I await you evidentiary post.

How is it that you determine that he even stooped to name calling those who "even agreed with him in large part"?

I really don't want to belabor this but I would like you to substantiate those things. The former is an outright exaggeration that says, "Well, since it was said to be true of most then it must be true of all." That's another staple of msg boards... embelishing to the extreme. Again, I think what Noah said and how he defined white supremacy clearly outlines how he feels someone is or isn't...

The latter... well, let's just say that you are making "wild" assumptions. I certainly have not read any posts that "agreed with him in large part". That seems, for one, very relative. How large is large? or what constitutes it.

See you continue to insert in as many ways as you can, your definition, opinion and interpretation of things.

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

As I said, you mixed up Noah's argument and his basis for making those claims. Can you point out were it was that Noah claimed that whoever he claimed to be racist or a white supremacist believed in this 'genetic' doctrine?

First of all you asked me my definition of white supremacist, not Noah's. Again you conflate that which shouldn't be conflated.

Like I said, for Noah it was pretty much anyone who he felt like labeling as such. Even when he could not demonstrate the ability to follow a thread on an elementary level he felt confident in his abilities to apply such appellations liberally.

Yes, I can point it out. But a better question is whether I will. And relevant to that question is that Noah is of far less interest to me than I think he is to you (e.g. you emulate him, I don't). I don't feel like reading through his posts at the moment and don't much care to maintain a high intellectual standard of debate about Noah so I don't plan to. But if it is relevant to your efforts to be his personal champion feel free to read them yourself. The genetic argument was stated at least twice that I recall.

Perhaps I may be persuaded to cite examples of Noah's gems in the future. But so as not to disappoint in the future I am making clear my current disinterest in that pursuit.

Quote:

You just offered what is your definition of a white supremacist which has little to do with what Noah and plenty of other people equate to white supremacy in a overall context of wanting to preserve a more privileged or advantaged position.

You are correct, I offered MY opinion. You had implied that I was using a narrow definition of the term as being only the "KKK" brand of racism. You asked for examples that would contradict your assertion. I gave one such example that fell outside of the KKK's brand of lunacy. That I offered my definition is a predictable consequence of the fact that the inquiry was directed at me and that it sought examples that I would give. I trust that in the future inquiries directed at me will not be met with surprise when the response contains my opinion. If you want, say, Noah's opinion he is a far more reliable source on the topic of Noah's opinion than am I.

Not everything I post has "what would Noah do?" in mind. <shrugs>

Quote:

As I said, you are hung up on a word, violating the very criteria and principles - aka rules (I can only assume) - that you say are important.

And as I said, your assumptions are frequently misplaced. Feel free to entertain them for a greater duration than I will.

Quote:

What that is my friend, is semantics by any other name. Again, the principles you described as being out-of-order (or whatever you word of choice would be by extent or degree) - i.e. "mixing up other people's arguments and attributing things to other posters that they didn't say" - reflect on how you have certainly violated them and promoted your own... your own definition of white supremacy as you, apparently, have us all ascribe it to Noah or pretend that your genetic take would be the only definition of it.

You two share similar levels of coherence, though you generally do a better job. Here you are not up to your own standards. I have most certainly not mixed any of Noah's arguments. Even with your penchant for conflating separate issues you can't illustrate that.

Now, as I said earlier, Noah is not nearly as important to me as he seems to be to you. So my failure to convince you of anything related to Noah is something I'm perfectly willing to live with. Cool

That you continue to conflate my opinion of a topic with what you think I think of Noah's is an error of yours I can peacefully abide.

Quote:

You have taken offense to a word, not to mention a word defined very differently than you have done here.

I will state, for at least the third time, that I have not taken offense to what Noah said. I always just considered the source.

Your inability to demonstrate reading comprehension is one of the reasons I'm telling you to research the Word of Noah yourself.

If you can't demonstrate the ability to understand what's written I have precious little motivation to fulfill your requests to provide more material for such demonstrations.

Quote:

Below would be, IMO, Noah's working definition of it which, again, at least to some degree, not at all out of consert with certain schools of thought; and, by its very construction, qualifies what and who exactly "fit" the label.

Not being an avid reader of Noah's Word I bow to your authority on the subject.

Do note, however, that what he defines it as and what appellations he decides to hurl when he is met with <theatrical gasp> disagreement here have shown themselves to have little in common.

If, as I suggest, you read his interactions you will find him leveling that accusation against persons that do not fit his own criteria. In fact he would frequently level that accusation against persons who had yet to opine on that subject at all.

Quote:

Frankly, any one who "fit" the definition below or rather makes those 'rationalizations' are the ones (by definition) that Noah called white supremacist.

Frankly, you are dead wrong again. Heck, he even came up with an excuse for his penchant to apply his accusations in error ("all you detractors look alike" or something to that effect).

Quote:

Now, if you want to say he called you or anyone else that without justification and you are reacting out of more than just a knee-jerk response as if to say, "Oh! I can't believe you called me a 'bad' word!".... then I would hope that you can say on what basis by virtue of his definition (below... or throughout) that you do not fit that mode of thinking/belief.

Noah 2, you really project a lot more import in Noah 1's words than I could. I don't much care if he called me a "bad word". Your repeated assertion that I did, and took offense to it is based on another one of your misplaced assumptions.

But to respond to your request, no, your hope is not misplaced. But the ole, "I hope you can explain why you are not a wife beater" requests are predictably not going to get much play. I personally don't think white supremacist is an appellation against which I must defend myself. I'd be happy to entertain your queries on this for as long as it amuses me but feel no obligation to do so.

Quote:

Noah's definition/description of white supremacy:
Quote:
The belief of white supremacy is mainly the product the convergence of historical propaganda, to rationalize the exploitation of blacks for economic gain, and the reality of white dominance of the world economically and militarily today. I believe that when one accepts the proposition that the Individual is the primary determining force in that individual's life outcome then it is easy to conclude that the superior individuals raise to the top, while the inferior occupy the bottom. However, individuals come as members of races or ethnicities. Thus, if individuals of one race are disproportionately poor, it logically follows that that there is something endemic (genetic) to that race that produces inferiority of outcome.

Noah had a poor understanding of logic and his arguments were frequently carped on that basis. If you'd like to defend that statement of Noah's I would be happy to carp your defense of it as well.

Thus far this hasn't been too interesting but I have high hopes that you will take up the task of defending that brainfart and bring some fun to this discussion. I urge you to do so and will, in fact, even say please. Noah was great fun when he tried to formulate logical arguments.

Please? Very Happy

Quote:

I think that lays out pretty plainly what he (and, again, others) have identified as components of a white supremacy ideology. Those quotes come from the Racism cured or only in temporary remission? thread.

My qualms with Noah's theoretical definitions of supremacist views are less copious than my qualms with his application of them in practice (i.e. knee-jerk accusations).

Quote:

Page 9 & 10 of this *link* sort of speaks to the rationalizations that Noah says amounts to belief in, complicity with and/or adherence to white supremacy. Please note this statement within:

With traditional racism discredited as an ideology, few people now blamed the "deficits" of blacks on genetics or biology. More fashionable was some version of "cultural deprivation".

Odd that you raise this. One of my disagreements with Noah was his assertion that blacks are "damaged". But that's a minor quibble that I won't pursue here.

Quote:

I know I've heard those kinds of arguments plenty of times, of course, from people who would swear they are not racist and would say all those 'good' things. Well, I believe matters are judge more by actions than by words... and these boards and the words expressed reveal the extent of the actions people say they profess to make or see as necessary. So, in that sense primarily and, perhaps, in that sense only, is it important as to what people actually say.

That's just a long way to restate the cliché it's based on, that "actions speak louder than words". <shrugs>

Quote:

It is not enough to say I'm not racist, etc. because I don't believe in 'biological' supremacy...

If ya say so Noah. You might have missed the fact that I don't feel compelled to convince you or Noah the First that I am not a racist.So whether or not that's "enough" to you is of very little concern to me. I'm willing to entertain the discussions as long as they are amusing, but if I fail to meet your criteria and am relegated to your "racist" pigeon-hole I will simply give it all the consideration it is due.

Quote:

I think you know and have to admit that that is closer if not the exact definition Noah was using.

When I responded to your inquiries of me I did not do so with the knowledge that you wanted me to speak for Noah, you have confused our roles again. I am not Noah's spokesperson. I am in no way obligated to operate under Noah's definitions of the term.

In any case, as I have stated, Noah did not adhere to the definitions you ascribe to him. He was perfectly willing to opt for knee-jerk in its stead.

Quote:

Now refer back to the previous link.

Quote:
Incorrect, he simply decided to call the entire forum white supremacists. Even the people who agreed with him in large part.

Okay... feel free to site the post that said ALL, EACH, EVERY - aka this ENTIRE - forum = white supremacist. I await you evidentiary post.

I feel just as free not to. I've already stated my reasons for allowing you to be the sole scholar of his ramblings. But in a gesture of human solidarity I will give you a query that should prove itself useful to you in your use of the forum's search functions.

Query (from the horse's mouth): "you all are simply defenders of white supremacy"

There are probably others, if they included some of his gratuitous insults they might have been removed. But I don't think that one was.

Quote:

How is it that you determine that he even stooped to name calling those who "even agreed with him in large part"?

Ah, an easy one. Allow me to explain. I determined the above based on the observation of Noah the First stooping to namecalling against people who even agreed with him in large part.

Quote:

I really don't want to belabor this but I would like you to substantiate those things. The former is an outright exaggeration that says, "Well, since it was said to be true of most then it must be true of all." That's another staple of msg boards... embelishing to the extreme.

Another staple is getting things ass-backwards and posting erroneously with conviction. I have provided you with a query to facilitate your research. I await your verification of its source and your subsequent semantic convolutions in defense of your error with un-bated breath.

Quote:

Again, I think what Noah said and how he defined white supremacy clearly outlines how he feels someone is or isn't...

And I in turn find a better indication of whom he considers to be a white supremacist to be observance of the persons against whom he makes that accusation.

In short, when he calls someone a white supremacist it "clearly outlines" whether he feels someone is or isn't.

Quote:

The latter... well, let's just say that you are making "wild" assumptions. I certainly have not read any posts that "agreed with him in large part". That seems, for one, very relative. How large is large? or what constitutes it.

You set yourself up. Your revelation that an adjective like "large" is subjective or "relative" is underwhelming. To put it another way, "No Duh!"

But you fall into your own trap, you assert its subjectivity and then proceed to use it yourself. Of course "large" is a relative term, when I use it or when you do (e.g. as you have just done).

You have provided as much basis to claim that my assertion of the existence of people who agreed with him "in large part" is "wild assumption" as one would have to assert that your subsequent assertion that the posts did not agree with him in large part is an equally "wild assumption".

I, for one, agree with the most relevant parts of Noah's arguments. His screed on the whole is something I consider to be mental flatulence but in matters of import (e.g. the principle of equality and the desire to enact measure to bring it to pass) I agree for the large part.

Even in some areas such as the implementation of the rectifying actions we had common ground.

We, did, however part company on the topic of race-related advantages. I contended that societal status was a more fair and quantifiable criteria. I also contended that any tax relief should not be given to a "black leader" to redistribute but rather to the individuals themselves as they would better know what to do with it and might not choose to be as sheepish as he would like.

It's not really a big part of the screed, my solutions were more "pinko-commie" and his more "reparations" and "follow-the-leader". Yet even disagreement on a quibble like that meant the ole racist appellation.

Quote:

See you continue to insert in as many ways as you can, your definition, opinion and interpretation of things.

This should not surprise you Noah the Second. To help avoid such irrelevant remarks in the future let's make this clear and get it out of the way.

In my posts you are more likely to find my opinion than that of others. This is a predictable result of the fact that unlike yourself I am not serving as someone else's spokesperson herein.

Now if you'd like to address the validity of my opinions feel free to do so, but pointing out that my posts are formulated in large part by my opinions is another underwhelming revelation.

0 Replies

The entire basis of Noah's screed, to wit, that racism is a part of some eternal, global conspiracy by whites to establish an oppressive economic hegemony, is self-evidently specious. That is, it should be evident, if Noah, and anyone who subscribes to such nonsense, were not blinded by their own racism. The basis of the capitalist system which prevails among European societies (which includes the societies of North and South America) is not the imposition of a disadvantage on any class of people--it is the perpetuation of particular advantages to a discrete, small class of individuals, of which any member of any race could form a part, had they sufficient wealth. Bush's tax cuts don't seek to shift the tax burden to the middle- and working classes, it was shifted there long ago, in the era of the second world war. Rather, his tax cuts are part an parcel with the deep, underlying principle of privilege in capitalism. Those tax cuts simply offer more advantages to those who already enjoy a near immunity to taxation. Were any black man or woman able to join that class of people, and there have been sufficient examples of wealthy black people in the last 50 years to suggest many may already have done so, such an individual could invest offshore, create hedge funds, establish trusts, and otherwise take advantage of the system. The point which many here tried to get across to Noah (and failed in the attempt because of Noah's deeply ingrained racism) is that the system doesn't distinguish based on race--it does not seek to oppress economically, that is just an inherent consequence of what the system is actually designed for: to perpetuate advantage and privilege to any and all whose wealth qualifies them to take advantage of the system.

Noah's failure to recognize this, his unwillingness to see it when it is pointed out, arises from his eternal racists assumption that the object of European peoples (including North and South Americans) is to oppress others based on their "color." Like so many political fanatics, he has devised a ludicrously warped view of history in order to support his basically flawed thesis.

0 Replies

Oh... now I am Noah's emulator. Or should I say Noah The Second, N2 or the keeper of "The Word Of Noah".... Laughing

I thought I told you name calling basically just entertains me or I guess I said it doesn't bother me. So, you resorting and spending so much energy on clever ways to call me Noah (as in Noah The African) or an actual devotee type of disciple of his in whatever fashion just brings a smile to my face.

Though I would like to oblige you with the name-calling thing, I will stick to the content... Suffice it to say that, again, my links in the last post speaks to why I'm discussing this with you. Noah and by extention what he has said is merely a convenient way of doing that. For you however, it is a convenient way to be quip and dismissive.

Quote:

Not everything I post has "what would Noah do?" in mind.

Oh, how cute are we... Since I obviously need to say this. This is just an academic exercise. If it was something about an argument you made that others disagreed with in the same fallacious way I perceive that has for the most part been done with Noah here then I would "defend" you too. That's not to say that I agree with everything Noah said or will say or the we he or even you will say it. I see it as a narrow question wherein no specualtion about my motivation is needed. Either Noah or anyone else for that matter violated a coherent criteria applied evenly and without respect to the type of argument made or he did not.

Essentially I have asked if it was really what he said that offended. At least to some degree given that the following statements of yours it seems that your own ideas have gotten in the way:

Quote:

"I don't think a discussion about white supremacy is insulting. I do think being called a white supremacist is. The reason I feel this way is because I do not believe in inherent white supremacy...."

> Okay! Given that Noah and plenty of people who use that term in a like manner have not promoted or made their definition or charge contingent on it being "genetic" or otherwise "inherent" - in 'whiteness' - perhaps in the sense you do (you have not explain exactly what that means or implicates) then how is it that you can claim the label is defamatory when obviously you are talking about two different things with very different implications?

"...and think such beliefs have caused great harm."

> Frankly, the harm associated with the term is irrelevant especially when a different working definition is established. That's like trying to judge political parties today by how they were defined in earlier eras where they perhaps had a very different if not opposite worldview than they have today. By way of analogy, you are saying that idea of the harm that was associated with either party in the distant past is a basis never using either those party names or like terms however differently defined today.

Now if a fool wants to ascribe such beliefs to me I'd not take serious insult at it. But I do consider the label to be defamatory, all the more so when innappropriately used (because the epitome of a white supremacist is actually proud of it, those who revile that kind of thinking obviously are less enamoured by the term).

You mean you quibble over the word and thereby your definition of it and how your definition of it doesn't apply to and thereby rending yourself incapable of judging whether it was inappropriately used against because you have essentially used it against yourself. That is you have "conflated" your idea with Noah's as if to say that Noah, simply by using the term, has levied it at you and others by the definition you have chosen.

In essence you have associated yourself with the KKK types or whoever and not Noah. I know for sure his definition (as one my links coincides and suggests) goes far beyond those types or any that you have mention and that's exactly what you seem to find problematic. You want to of course limit it to those who are "proud of it" - a poor description of anyone who adheres to a certain philosophy - as a way to avoid it implicating anyone who isn't out of the norm of thinking or however you would characterize it. You want to isolate it and therefore you choose to insert your definition or rather insist that the way inwhich you define white supremacy was in effect if not indeed the way inwhich Noah was making such accusations.

That's the problem with semantics. And for the record, if anything, I asked you for your definition of white supremacy within the context of what made Noah's use of it problematic. You stipulated that he applied it poorly but I have to wonder if you were talking about his definition or yours.

And to your naive and pretentious argument that you have some "common ground" with Noah... well, just because you both may want change... it is quite evident that you don't want the same kind of change or particularly for the same reasons. So, if your "change" is different from his "change" then where is the "common ground"?

Democrats and Republicans both say they "love" America and want to make her "better", etc., etc. but would you characterize that mutually held goal as "common ground"? I think not. Likewise, you shouldn't try to intimate that there is such a "common ground" when obviously there is a lot that you fundamentally disagree with. "Common ground" indicates agreement on core fundamental principles. If you characterize Noah's opinion about white supremacy as something he feels or implies that is "inherent" (and I believe you do in fact believe that to be his position) then that's a serious fundamental difference in the way you will conceptualize "change".

I recall the exchange on INTERNAL and EXTERNAL... and if I'm right you objected to the either/or line of thinking - which would be something we share in common - but did not specify what constituted the INTERNAL things. That does not seem to suggest "common ground".

What you have indicated, IMO, is some type of superficial "common ground" that is apparently not based on anything except the overall notion or concept of change. And, I'm not white or a subscriber to certain philosophies that seem to resonate with whites (for a lack of a better way of phrasing it) so you would have to explain to me what a "pinko commie" is and how it is relevant or indicative of a position that would seek the same common goal and shares "common ground" with Noah's ideas.
Quote:
My qualms with Noah's theoretical definitions of supremacist views are less copious than my qualms with his application of them in practice (i.e. knee-jerk accusations).

I think I just demonstrated or at least suggested that your assertion that you somehow have common ground with Noah is a false and superficial one. So, with that being at least one of the underlying assumptions or issues that makes his liberal application of the WS accusation problematic for you, then those 'qualms' - that I can only assume are based on those assumptions - are completely misplaced. The idea that he even did it to people who agree with him in "large part" is your assertion. A false assertion given the few points of fundamental convergents I mentioned.
Quote:
"With traditional racism discredited as an ideology, few people now blamed the "deficits" of blacks on genetics or biology. More fashionable was some version of "cultural deprivation".

> Odd that you raise this. One of my disagreements with Noah was his assertion that blacks are "damaged". But that's a minor quibble that I won't pursue here.

"One of your disagreements"... I guess that's how "common ground" works, huh? (I won't mention that that implies that you had several disagreements with Noah, so I won't mention how that puzzles me with your assertion about "common ground".)

The only thing "odd" is how you seem to be missing my point or better yet the point of what I referenced. I don't see how the word "deficits" equates to "damage". I don't know what exchange you are talking about but my use of it was to emphasize the well documented aversion to the 'genetics' based ideology of white supremacy, the morphing of its functional essence into more "fashionable" terms and more specifically the kinship it shared with the question Noah raised concerning how it is that people account for the disparities between blacks and whites.

Those disparities, as I see it, would equate to the "deficits" alluded to in the link and not some undescripted concept of blacks being "damaged"... I'm sorry, but I can't figure out in what sense you disagree with Noah on that because I don't know in what sense he used it and frankly I don't care. I offered that source which used a very different term that I think needs very little interpretation whereas you allude to something I think must have a context in order to understand.

I don't think it takes a lot understand the "deficits" but that "damaged" idea, even if it is a term that Noah used and even if you are using it in the same way, begs the question of:
Damaged in what way?
Damaged by whom or by what? etc.

The implications are obvious. Disagreement over them are fundamental - aka in opposition to having "common ground". But, again, I have no idea what you mean or what Noah meant by that and I would hate to speculate that that idea is something you attribute to him (falsely).
Quote:
I'm willing to entertain the discussions as long as they are amusing, but if I fail to meet your criteria and am relegated to your "racist" pigeon-hole I will simply give it all the consideration it is due.

Now, Golly Geeze Got DAMN!!! I don't believe that I have called you racist or said that you believe in white supremacy. I haven't been concerned with what you believe but have only dealt with what you have written here without making either such conclusion about your person.

What is it that has you resorting to name-calling? and now, making completely false accusations about what I have said or might say?

I have used the name Noah's Hard Left Hook!... not Noah 2, etc. Seems like you have a lot of time to speculate as to what I'm trying to do, who I'm trying to be like and what my eventual motives or actions will be. For the insecure, I hardly think I write in the same style as Noah [the African] so whatever it is that makes you think that I am him or will say or do exactly what he has is particularly laughable.

It is also a very curious thing...
While you have a problem with Noah alienating you due to certain things you feel.... you feel... you have in "common" with him/his ideas, I wonder why it's so easy for you to attempt to alienate or castigate me simply because I guess I acknowledge that there may be somethings I share in common with Noah.

I mean going to the extreme of worrying about whether I will place you in a category or assess whether you meet a criteria (that Noah presented) when I have not and never suggested that I would is pretty revealing.... and entertaining I might add.... because you know there is no basis in what I have said that would JuMp to that conclusion or delve into that kind of unfounded speculation.

I have not asked you to prove whether you are racist or not.
Frankly, I don't give a crap if you are. And I damn sure will not be holding my breath for you to raise your hand and begin a AA type of confessional. :wink:

Whew!!!!!!!!! Now all of that is too funny. Thanks for the entertainment.

Now can we get back to a real discussion. I asked you what I did about white supremacy, etc. in order to understand what it is that you object to. I don't know what it is new that you have presented but I at least got you down for your personal opinion about it. Perhaps, I should have left it at that. Asking for how that related to and implicated what Noah said must have clouded the issue for you. For that, I am sorry.

If you would rather talk about my initial MLK post (response) then I'm more than happy to talk about that. BTW, I can and have accepted what you said about the abrasive tone of it and though I am not one who confuses style with substance... I take your words on that in advisement.

It's funny though how it was so easy for you to continue to talk about Noah... FYI if someone would have address the MLK post I would have no reason to speak about or defend Noah. Me, personally, I will talk on any issue on almost any level. With an exception of my name, I did nothing to start this conversation about Noah... and I think you know that.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The entire basis of Noah's screed, to wit, that racism is a part of some eternal, global conspiracy by whites to establish an oppressive economic hegemony, is self-evidently specious. That is, it should be evident, if Noah, and anyone who subscribes to such nonsense, were not blinded by their own racism. The basis of the capitalist system which prevails among European societies (which includes the societies of North and South America) is not the imposition of a disadvantage on any class of people--it is the perpetuation of particular advantages to a discrete, small class of individuals, of which any member of any race could form a part, had they sufficient wealth. Bush's tax cuts don't seek to shift the tax burden to the middle- and working classes, it was shifted there long ago, in the era of the second world war. Rather, his tax cuts are part an parcel with the deep, underlying principle of privilege in capitalism. Those tax cuts simply offer more advantages to those who already enjoy a near immunity to taxation. Were any black man or woman able to join that class of people, and there have been sufficient examples of wealthy black people in the last 50 years to suggest many may already have done so, such an individual could invest offshore, create hedge funds, establish trusts, and otherwise take advantage of the system. The point which many here tried to get across to Noah (and failed in the attempt because of Noah's deeply ingrained racism) is that the system doesn't distinguish based on race--it does not seek to oppress economically, that is just an inherent consequence of what the system is actually designed for: to perpetuate advantage and privilege to any and all whose wealth qualifies them to take advantage of the system.

Noah's failure to recognize this, his unwillingness to see it when it is pointed out, arises from his eternal racists assumption that the object of European peoples (including North and South Americans) is to oppress others based on their "color." Like so many political fanatics, he has devised a ludicrously warped view of history in order to support his basically flawed thesis.

I regard all of that as your assertions a predictable response and one lacking depth. I think Noah did a fairly sound job (sound in the sense that there is no reason to confuse what he said) of defining white supremacy on the basis of a perpetuated social construct wherein "white" self-interest is what is promoted. The skin color thing at best is a side issue. His opinion and that of others is that it is white self-interest or shall I say like the U.S. gov't does, strategic interest - i.e. one of ultimate controlling advantage - is what is promoted. To have that 'ultimate' advantage does not require absolute, conscious compliance of all those that meet some racial description.

I can stipulate that the economics and ability of people of any raise to achieve certain status as you implied - to perpetuate advantage and privilege to a certain class - is in essence and in effect the perpetuation of white privilege. Personal wealth in this context amounts to nothing but ascribing to absolutism, which is ridiculous. I think Noah was very clear about the 'general rule' and did not quibble over 'exceptions to the rule'.

You have, hence, made and argument that has already been addressed.
I could go further how even black individuals that achieve large amounts of personal wealth really go on to perpetuate white supremacy and white dominance. It seems that semantics and terms here has a lot of people taking things too literal.

Personally, the charges that people like Noah are claiming that there is a global conspiracy and then inevitable citation of acknowledge exceptions to the rule are but concocted ideas that amount to Straw Men.

I guess the major point of contention or source of disagreement is the INDIVIDUAL vs. COLLECTIVE perspectives. Noah, for example, has always postulated in the broader 'collective' sense and those that disagree with him, like you, have dwelled on things in an 'individual' context.

Logically, you can't rebutt the validity of an argument if you are not speaking in the same terms and within the same parameters. If I want to talk about the quality a basket of full of fruit, insisting on talking about the quality of any one or a few of those fruit is a very different conversation. The scope, extent, degree and emphasis are inevitably very different.

So, when you speak about how certain black individual have risen to a level of status you have refused to talk about what is the overwhelming position or station of the collective and even began to explore it. You have ignored so much in order to promote your emphasis.

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Oh... now I am Noah's emulator. Or should I say Noah The Second, N2 or the keeper of "The Word Of Noah"....

I thought I told you name calling basically just entertains me or I guess I said it doesn't bother me. So, you resorting and spending so much energy on clever ways to call me Noah (as in Noah The African) or an actual devotee type of disciple of his in whatever fashion just brings a smile to my face.

Noah,

I'll get back to the rest of your post when I have the time but first I want to address this risible namecalling accusation. Laughing

1) You state yourself that you emulate Noah and use his name.
2) You have taken up the task of acting as his spokesperson.
3) Addressing you as anything other than "hey dude" or something similar can be called "namecalling".

In this case I am calling you exactly what you chose to use as a moniker. You chose to emulate your buddy Noah 1. I call you Noah 2 simply because your appearance herein was subsequent to that of Noah 1.

If you came first, you'd get to be Noah the First. :wink: Since you came after he did, and chose to emulate him by taking up his name and becoming his spokesperson the distiction of "second" is used.

You openly admit to emulating him by taking up his name and have decided to act as his spokesperson here. I fail to see how this is untoward in the least.

Now if you object to being called Noah, then by all means reconsider your use of that username. I distinguish between the two Noah's through the use of "the First" and "the Second" in much the same way that a child named after his father is called "Junior" or "the Second".

I thought a very simple numerical distinction would be not be untoward as "Junior" might be. <shrugs>

If, however, you have no objections (as you claim while complaining about it) then this should be a non-issue.

If you do have objections by all means raise them with me and I shall try to allay your concern. But if your point was to simply complain about a non-issue, then, well, it was pointless. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Nonsense--the majority of white people do not attain to the status of the wealthiest. My objection is to the specious idea advanced by Noah that people seeking their self-interest do so by defining that interest in terms of race. This is the racist component of Noah's thesis. Certainly people seek their own self-interst. Noah's thesis is, however, naive and specious because it assumes that race is constantly to the forefront of the considerations with which people analyze their personal situations in order to assure their self-interst. He has always failed to make that case. You have failed to make the case, as well. For example, your laughable contention that wealthy black individuals "really go on to perpetuate white supremacy and white dominance." Such statements are only possible by casting all people's actions in terms of racially-based motivations. Wealthy individuals do not seek to perpetuate their wealth because of a racially oppressive agenda. Noah's feeble attempts to make that case were based upon extremely warped statements about the meaning of history, a subject for which he has demonstrated an abyssmal ignorance.

If you wish to discuss "the collective," then consider that the majority of poor people in the United States are white. The majority of the recipients of government-funded social welfare in the United States are white. Far from setting up a straw man, i am aguing against a straw man--the straw man in this case being that there is any conscious effort at economic white supremacy. Capitalism is supremely indifferent to race; anyone who has the price of admission can play, leave your labels at the door.

I regard your response as lacking depth, and worse, being nothing more than bankrupt, recycled marxist dogma, perverted by an obsession with race.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

My objection is to the specious idea advanced by Noah that people seeking their self-interest do so by defining that interest in terms of race. This is the racist component of Noah's thesis. Certainly people seek their own self-interst. Noah's thesis is, however, naive and specious because it assumes that race is constantly to the forefront of the considerations with which people analyze their personal situations in order to assure their self-interst. He has always failed to make that case. You have failed to make the case, as well.

Quite right. As I said to the first Noah, only the inordinately ethnocentric think it in their self interest to promote privilidge based on race (as Noah did).

0 Replies

Quote:

"I don't think a discussion about white supremacy is insulting. I do think being called a white supremacist is. The reason I feel this way is because I do not believe in inherent white supremacy...."

Okay, obviously, I want to highlight this (again). First, it doesn't even logically follow. If you have no qualms about discussing white supremacy then obviously by extension you should have no qualms with the labeling or being called a white supremacist per se. Whether or not it is inherent or not is irrelevant.

Again, I don't know what in particular you are implying when you say, "inherent white supremacy". "Inherent" how?

Inherent white supremacy in terms of all white people are born racist?
Inherent white supremacy as in that being the ultimate operative nature of [U.S.] society?

NOW ABOUT YOUR OTHER CLAIM:

Quote:

First of all you asked me my definition of white supremacist, not Noah's. Again you conflate that which shouldn't be conflated.

Let's review what was said to determine your "level of coherence".

I don't know whether you follow me but for me (and I am black) I don't understand what it is about that term - white supremacist - particularly in the way Noah used it (from what I read) that would be offensive to whites or blacks especially if it doesn't apply.
Perhaps you can shed some light on what is so offensive about being called a 'name' like that.
What is it about race and that term - white supremacist - [i.e. people's overreaction to it] that causes what I see as something somewhat inconsistent with the nature of message boards? [The propensity to mischaracterize someone's position, that is, and not be seen as breaking rules or being overly antagonistic.]
Anyway, I would like if you could at least explain what you feel is 'insulting' about the term and/or the discussion of white supremacy.

Before I question where in those statements you ascertained that I was solely inquirying about your "definition" in the abstract and not in the context of all of this, I'd like to talk about the other pretenses that seem to have been promoted by you and others.

First of all, there is this attitude that somehow you and others are "right"... which apparently seems to lead to this idea that once you [in the generic sense] present your ideas that they are suppose to be accepted and/or assimilated because, I guess, since you made them they are inherently valid if even relevant. The tone seems to have been, "We tried to talk some sense into [Noah] and educate him - i.e. tell him where he is wrong but he wouldn't listen."

I will just say that is particularly problematic if in fact you were never really talking about the same thing. Matter of fact that is or would be my contention. I think a lot of these discussions hinge on two E's:
EMPHASIS and EXAGGERATION.

Basically if someone doesn't emphasize a point to the extent and degree you do then you will tend to exaggerate what their actual position is.... There are bunch of others but one of yours is that somehow I am, in this instance, not reading or understanding what you have said to me.

Well, I think I have just proven that you have done a poor job understanding me because I did not ask you for your definition of white supremacy... at least not in isolation to the overall discussion and Noah's take. That first dot-pointed statement says just that. So do you mind E X P L A I N I N G how it is you came to that idea?

Note: Explain was in fact the operative word. I do think it differs from define and I do think that was clearly what I was asking which may obviously may include offering a definition but it goes beyond that as well. And that's not to mention the clause "particularly in the way Noah used it".

As for most of what you call my "wild" assumptions, I attribute most of that to your issues with semantics. The rest to a difference of emphasis. It is obvious that this whole white supremacy thing, for you, is all about that, semantics.

Quote:

I don't think a discussion about white supremacy is insulting.
I do think being called a white supremacist is.

That's all semantics and equivocation. It all hinges on how you are defining the term. Now, since you have not called yourself a white supremacist by your definition and I have offered that Noah likewise has not called you a white supremacist by your definition then your whole issue with it, in that sense, is moot. Beyond that, that idea is illogical.

It's like saying:
"I don't think a discussion about "N@ggas" is insulting.
I do think being called a "N@gga" is."

I would like to see how you would make that distinction or find a more analogous term that would follow along the line you posited.... Let's see.... It doesn't work for "Liberal", nor for "Neo-Con"... hmmm... Does it work for "Jihadists"? I don't know??? perhaps you can illustrate how that logic is suppose to work? I would definitely appreciate that. Thank you!

Also, I see you not-so-cleverly obfuscated on assessing yourself and the resultant 'insult' you felt the label carries against how Noah defined the term. In essence you said you have no interest in doing that. That's cool! I never asked you to! This seems to all be centered around more of an emotional reaction to - i.e. an aversion - to the term and not so much a rational, logic based repudiation. Again, I never asked you to tell me whether you think you are racist or not, etc. And I didn't ask you strictly for your definition except to clarify those who you characterize as believing in white supremacy, which we see is a very limited group based on a very limited and narrow criteria of yours which belies the common sense understanding of the term and via semantics only seeks to define it in a more traditional, less "fashionable" sense. (I guess you think that is... "odd" Rolling Eyes

)

What I did ask, however, was for you to be intellectually honest and not ascribe or attribute your ideas to others or Noah in this case when it can be clearly demonstrated that what you think the term means was not what was being charged or the accusation being levied. I simply asked you to explain why being called a white supremacist is such a button pusher for you.

And please don't quibble of that term - button pusher. I only mean in the way that you said you find such an accusation "insulting".

0 Replies

Quote:

For example, your laughable contention that wealthy black individuals "really go on to perpetuate white supremacy and white dominance." Such statements are only possible by casting all people's actions in terms of racially-based motivations. Wealthy individuals do not seek to perpetuate their wealth because of a racially oppressive agenda.

Are these wealthy blacks just people who have "good" jobs or people who are controlling and shaping - i.e. changing the world - in a way that is uniquely of their own genius?

First you have to understand what I'm talking about before I attack it. They are just cookie cutters (and I say that with no disrespect), just another individual plugged into the "system" that still functions the same way it always did. You even admitted to that in a sense.

So, simply math and reasoning tells you that if you have a "system" and society set up in a way where historically whites have dominated and basically did so to the extent that they held a practical monopoly over most everything from the institutions to the ideas, etc. then blacks that rise up through the ranks and participate in a way to "take advantage of the system" quite certainly are not directly opposing or proposing to change it. So, generation after generation that dominance and monopoly over things are held ever so firm granting mere token allowance for some to "take advantage" of it... but not at all to change it.

Your problem is that you are locked in to thinking it is all about skin color and again that everyone in whatever group has to sign-on to the "agenda".

When have you signed-on to the "American" agenda? Does not this country and its social, political and economic systems move on without your active involvement in it? You are actually irrelevant to the extent that it needs you to conscious detail your intentions. People are born, they go to school and they get a job. As long as how that process is set up promotes the status quo which is born out of the past, the not so distant and clearly racist past, then we are talking about the preservation of the fundamental elements of it. Black unemployment was twice white unemployment in the 50's and 60's, it is still so today... so tell me how in that sense the more privileged and dominant position of whites has changed?

The discussion is about as far as I'm concerned what it is in effect. As for what "wealthy individuals" do, I guess I would have to pull a Noah and ask you how it is you know what wealthy individuals do and think? I'm guess you know the hearts and minds of every wealthy individual, huh?

Try speaking in relevant terms.

"Racially motivated"... it does take a conscious decision or grand conspiracy do something "racially motivated". It can simply be manifest in nepotism or cronyism. The burden of proof is clearly on you to prove that that is not the case when the reality of things are as they are. No one has to say, "this is the reason I'm doing this" or even co-sign to some agenda for the fruit of what they do to result in such a reality in effect.

When we consume products from sweatshops, no matter what your opinion is of them, it does not require that we intentionally set about doing or perhaps even want to. To great extent, that's how society, the market in this instance, is set up.

Consider this source.

0 Replies

No, there is no burden of proof on me to establish what are your premises. That whites, and specifically, white Anglo-Saxon and white German members of American society have had the upperhand in our history is not to be doubted. There is not logical basis, however, to infer from that that the white people in the United States are inherently white supremecist, nor that participation in the economic system makes one a participant in white supremacy. In fact, my Irish ancestors broke through the "glass ceiling" imposed by the white Anglo-Saxon dominated society to find a place for themselves. There is no historical basis for contending that they did so by consciously, nor even unwittingly, contributing to a white supremacist conspiracy.

Whatever Noah you wish to be known as wrote:

Your problem is that you are locked in to thinking it is all about skin color and again that everyone in whatever group has to sign-on to the "agenda".

No, this is precisely what i've consistently accused Noah of doing in his screed. Because whites have been economically dominant in our history is not evidence of any white supremacist conspiracy. Nor is it even evidence of any effect (intentional or otherwise) of white supremacy. Were the economic playing field completely level for all Americans (which it likely never will be), whites would still control the majority of economic resources, due to the simple fact that they are the majority of the population. I don't contend that anyone need sign on to an agenda; i do contend that Noah has an agenda which is based in racial perception, and which holds that anyone who does not work toward the goals of his agenda is participating, even if unknowingly, in what he characterizes as white supremacy. Apparently, that is your argument as well. I find it specious and unsupportable.

Given the ethnic and "racial" demographics of this nation, within a few generations, this entire argument will be absurd, since there likely will be few "purely" white or "purely" black people left in the nation.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, this is precisely what i've consistently accused Noah of doing in his screed. Because whites have been economically dominant in our history is not evidence of any white supremacist conspiracy.

When you stop making up arguments then we can talk. "Conspiracy"... Rolling Eyes

Also, I didn't ask and don't care about your personal or family's personal experience. It is irrelevant here.

You have no interest in this except but to as Craven has outlined

mix up people's arguments; and
attribute or ascribe arguments to them that are not theirs [but are one's born out of your interpretations and skewed views.]

Because whites have been economically dominant in our history is not evidence of any white supremacist conspiracy.

See, this is why this is so ridiculous... OKAY! What is that "history" and the economically dominant position of whites evidence of?

If you were attempting to present a completely honest and logical argument, I wouldn't have to ask you that. Also, what does the statement below mean in relation to that and what major point do you really think you're making by saying white's (a generic use to be sure) economic/societal/political dominance (see it's not just about money... to me) is not the result of a conspiracy?

"That whites... have had the upperhand in our history is not to be doubted."

Well if that's so, and assuming that you are saying that "upperhand" was something less than deserved or less than appropriate (you characterize it for me so I really know what you mean), then what does it matter if such illegitimate dominance occurred as a result of a carefully plotted conspiracy or by happenstance? That dominance, again, if your "upperhand" definition alludes to something less than "good" then is no less illegitimate.

If one sports team loses to another by virtue of the other team getting away with 'cheating' whether the referees, league officials and their very own coach were apart of a conspiracy or not does not erase that the team was 'cheated' against and that had an impact on the outcome of the game. The bottom line is they still got "cheated".

Now, regardless as to what you have to say about that....
Don't beat around the bush with me tell me what you are saying means. Take what you say out to their logical conclusions... if you dare... and stipulate to what the implications of you thoughts are.

Quote:

Because whites have been economically dominant in our history is not evidence of any white supremacist conspiracy

Again, what is it evidence of then? Question

Quote:

Apparently, that is your argument as well. I find it specious and unsupportable

.

First, lol, I could care less how you "find" it. Secondly, I have said very little and hardly promoted any such idea about what I believe so I like to see what the basis of you contention is because, I for one, have never forwarded that there is such a conspiracy as you clearly intimate.

You seem to be arguing with yourself - i.e. your own deluded misrepresentations.

Quote:

Given the ethnic and "racial" demographics of this nation, within a few generations, this entire argument will be absurd, since there likely will be few "purely" white or "purely" black people left in the nation.

Well, lol, I'm not interested in you prognostication nor your statement of the obvious. I am however interested, right now, in exactly what you attribute white dominance to since an active or, I guess, a functional "conspiracy" is out of the question.

What is the cause for it and for its continuance?

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Essentially I have asked if it was really what he said that offended.

And I, in turn have essentially said that Noah was a source of amusement for me and that I derived no offense.

Quote:

> Okay! Given that Noah and plenty of people who use that term in a like manner have not promoted or made their definition or charge contingent on it being "genetic" or otherwise "inherent" - in 'whiteness' - perhaps in the sense you do (you have not explain exactly what that means or implicates) then how is it that you can claim the label is defamatory when obviously you are talking about two different things with very different implications?

Really, Noah, the simplest concepts trip you up.

If one were to claim that the use of the word "nigger" is by his own definition a "friendly" term I would not think it in any way unreasonable for the person being described as such to object to its use.

Would you? If someone claims they use it in a certain way that is not defamatory , would you accept their use on their terms?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject their definition. But again, you really should talk to someone who was offended by Noah.

Quote:

"...and think such beliefs have caused great harm."

> Frankly, the harm associated with the term is irrelevant especially when a different working definition is established.

What you think about the relevance of the meaning of terms applied to others is not as important to them as what they think.

If someone wanted to use racial slurs against me and claim that they simply use a different definition of the term I would not necessarily accept it.

Quote:

That's like trying to judge political parties today by how they were defined in earlier eras where they perhaps had a very different if not opposite worldview than they have today. By way of analogy, you are saying that idea of the harm that was associated with either party in the distant past is a basis never using either those party names or like terms however differently defined today.

That's absurd. White supremacy causes harm today. Perhaps with a lesser frequency of occurance than in the past but that does not mean it is not harmful to society now.

Do you allege that white supremacy no longer causes harm?

Quote:

You mean you quibble over the word and thereby your definition of it and how your definition of it doesn't apply to and thereby rending yourself incapable of judging whether it was inappropriately used against because you have essentially used it against yourself. That is you have "conflated" your idea with Noah's as if to say that Noah, simply by using the term, has levied it at you and others by the definition you have chosen.

This argument does not come close to making any sense. Feel free to try to prove otherwise. :-)

Quote:

In essence you have associated yourself with the KKK types or whoever and not Noah.

Actually I haven't. Please note that you are the one who brought up the KKK and that you are the only one making that association. Really Noah, try to follow this discussion.

Quote:

I know for sure his definition (as one my links coincides and suggests) goes far beyond those types or any that you have mention and that's exactly what you seem to find problematic.

I have no "problem" with a definition of white supremacy that extends beyond the KKK-type extremes. Again, your assumptions and over-active imagination need to be curbed.

Quote:

You want to of course limit it to those who are "proud of it" - a poor description of anyone who adheres to a certain philosophy - as a way to avoid it implicating anyone who isn't out of the norm of thinking or however you would characterize it.

I have never once said I wished to limit it to those who are proud of it. Again Noah, your inability to demonstrate elementary reading comprehension skills are making you argue against phantoms. Laughing

A pity you need to conjure them instead of addressing the real persons herein.

Quote:

You want to isolate it and therefore you choose to insert your definition or rather insist that the way inwhich you define white supremacy was in effect if not indeed the way inwhich Noah was making such accusations.

And again Noah, you demonstrate the inability to comprehend the written word. I clearly said that Noah applied his accusations against persons who do not fit his own definition. So the discussion of whose defnition is the working one is a moot logomachy of your own creation.

Even by Noah's definitions his applications of the accusation were faulty.

Quote:

That's the problem with semantics. And for the record, if anything, I asked you for your definition of white supremacy within the context of what made Noah's use of it problematic. You stipulated that he applied it poorly but I have to wonder if you were talking about his definition or yours.

And again, I direct you to the time that I said that even using his definition he applied it poorly. The semantic games you play are of your own creation. I will restate it using a bold font to help you:

Noah's stated definition of "white supremacist" was inconsistent with some of his accusations of it. HE applied the accusation poorly even when we consider HIS definition to be the operative one.

Quote:

And to your naive and pretentious argument that you have some "common ground" with Noah... well, just because you both may want change...

I never said it was solely on the basis of a mutual desire for change. Really Noah, in your reply try to make an argument that does not involve an erroneous assumption.

Quote:

it is quite evident that you don't want the same kind of change or particularly for the same reasons.

Evident to who? Feel free to explain your substantiation for this statement.

Quote:

So, if your "change" is different from his "change" then where is the "common ground"?

It is the same in the fundamental ways and different only in that I rejected some of his more idiotic ideas on teh implementation (liek having "black leaders" handling black people's taxes).

Quote:

Democrats and Republicans both say they "love" America and want to make her "better", etc., etc. but would you characterize that mutually held goal as "common ground"?

Yes, that is common ground.

Quote:

I think not.

<shrugs> You think all kinds of things. Whether or not they have anything to do with reality is a separate issue.

Quote:

Likewise, you shouldn't try to intimate that there is such a "common ground" when obviously there is a lot that you fundamentally disagree with.

Says you? Common ground and fundamental differences are not mutually exclusive. When giving advice, it should not be idiotic (says me).

Quote:

"Common ground" indicates agreement on core fundamental principles.

This is just classic, Noah. Is that your definition or mine? Laughing

When I use the term "common ground" do you think it best to use your definition? Whatever happened to the "especially when a different working definition is established" nonsense you went in circles about earlier?

You are a riot!

Quote:

If you characterize Noah's opinion about white supremacy as something he feels or implies that is "inherent" (and I believe you do in fact believe that to be his position)

Yet another idiotic assumption. What you believe again diverges from reality.

Quote:

I recall the exchange on INTERNAL and EXTERNAL... and if I'm right you objected to the either/or line of thinking - which would be something we share in common - but did not specify what constituted the INTERNAL things. That does not seem to suggest "common ground".

Yes, Noah. One of our differences is an area that is not common ground. Rolling Eyes

Noah, you have a penchant for what's technically called "stating the bloody obvious".

Quote:

What you have indicated, IMO, is some type of superficial "common ground" that is apparently not based on anything except the overall notion or concept of change.

I disagree. I think we both share an important thing. We both want to see the black's lot in life improved. How to do so is one thing we might have points of disagreement. But essentiallly we share a common goal there.

Now if we only had "change" in common it could be a situation in which he wanted black uplifting and I wanted their subjugation. That would be a big difference Noah.

Now to be sure, what you consider to be superficial or significant common ground is a relative issue. And feel free to reject the association. Frankly I think it has more to do with the qualities in me that you dislike than an objective acessment but then again, association has a long history of having to do with likeability.

<shrugs>

If you don't think the common goal is common ground worth speaking of, I can understand, if not agree.

Quote:

And, I'm not white or a subscriber to certain philosophies that seem to resonate with whites (for a lack of a better way of phrasing it) so you would have to explain to me what a "pinko commie" is and how it is relevant or indicative of a position that would seek the same common goal and shares "common ground" with Noah's ideas.

I used the term just because what I was going to call Noah's position was not flattering, so I used one that is typically not flattering to describe mine.

Simply put, my solutions that I think would help the shared goal of the improvement in black standards of life have a greater basis in societal standing than race.

For example, let's stay in abstract terms. I think the poor should be helped regardless of what race they are. Noah seemed to argue that affluent black people deserved help, even if it hurt poor people of other races.

So mine is simply more socialist with social status being the criteria, while his is more ethnocentric with race being the criteria. I don't feel safe assuming anything on Noah's part but I don;t think our difference about this criteria was that big to him. I think he realized that if backs are disproportionately poor that helping the poor would help rectify this.

We parted company next on the issue of reparations being given to "black leaders" to distribute. I really found that to be absurd and preferred to let individuals decide their finances (they are of course free to seek out such leaders).

Quote:

Quote:
My qualms with Noah's theoretical definitions of supremacist views are less copious than my qualms with his application of them in practice (i.e. knee-jerk accusations).

I think I just demonstrated or at least suggested that your assertion that you somehow have common ground with Noah is a false and superficial one.

Nope, you conflate again. This is a comment on Noah's penchant for using the term against people whom he had not yet measured against his own criteria. I gave you an example where he says we "all" are. To be sure, he did not verify that we "all" fit his criteria.

That's just one example, he'd also mix up people's posts and call teh wrong person a white supremacists and refuse to apologize.

In short, he used it without even his own justifications. I would liek to see you use his own criteria to illustrate how his accusations were valid. You'll see what I mean. At times he got a little carried away.

Quote:

The idea that he even did it to people who agree with him in "large part" is your assertion.

That was just one example, he also leveled the accusation against everyone here, and in individual cases against persons who he hadn't meant to level it against because of his inability to follow a discussion.

Quote:

Quote:

> Odd that you raise this. One of my disagreements with Noah was his assertion that blacks are "damaged". But that's a minor quibble that I won't pursue here.

"One of your disagreements"... I guess that's how "common ground" works, huh? (I won't mention that that implies that you had several disagreements with Noah, so I won't mention how that puzzles me with your assertion about "common ground".)

Noah, allow me to explain how "common ground" works.

This is an example of a disagreement. That is not "common ground".

"Common ground" is its opposite. Got it? The points on which we disagree are obviously not examples of "common ground".

Quote:

Those disparities, as I see it, would equate to the "deficits" alluded to in the link and not some undescripted concept of blacks being "damaged"... I'm sorry, but I can't figure out in what sense you disagree with Noah on that because I don't know in what sense he used it and frankly I don't care. I offered that source which used a very different term that I think needs very little interpretation whereas you allude to something I think must have a context in order to understand.

I don't think it takes a lot understand the "deficits" but that "damaged" idea, even if it is a term that Noah used and even if you are using it in the same way, begs the question of:
Damaged in what way?
Damaged by whom or by what? etc.

Noah was saying that blacks are mentally "damaged" because of slavery. Like I said, a mere quibble, if you don't care what he said it's not worth pursuing.

Quote:

The implications are obvious. Disagreement over them are fundamental - aka in opposition to having "common ground".

You demonstrate similar logical deficiencies as the first Noah. Fundamental disagreements and common ground are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm willing to entertain the discussions as long as they are amusing, but if I fail to meet your criteria and am relegated to your "racist" pigeon-hole I will simply give it all the consideration it is due.

Now, Golly Geeze Got DAMN!!! I don't believe that I have called you racist or said that you believe in white supremacy. I haven't been concerned with what you believe but have only dealt with what you have written here without making either such conclusion about your person.

What is it that has you resorting to name-calling? and now, making completely false accusations about what I have said or might say?

Get a grip Noah. I never said you accused me of these things. What I did say was that when you stated what was not "enough" to make someone not a racist to you I did not care.

In other words:

1) You tried to define what is "enough"for someone to not be considered a racist. This was your opinion.
2) I said I didn't really care what's "enough" to you. So were I not to meet your criteria I would not lose any sleep.

Got it?

Quote:

I have used the name Noah's Hard Left Hook!... not Noah 2, etc. Seems like you have a lot of time to speculate as to what I'm trying to do, who I'm trying to be like and what my eventual motives or actions will be.

It doesn't take much time at all. ;-)

Quote:

For the insecure, I hardly think I write in the same style as Noah [the African] so whatever it is that makes you think that I am him or will say or do exactly what he has is particularly laughable.

Again the inability to demonstrate reading comprehension crops up. I am the only one who has expressed the opinion that I do not think you are him. I find you a bit more reasonable and a great deal more coherent at times.

But frankly, I really don't care who's behind the words. I just address the words. My use of the names was because you've named yourself after a punch. It's an awkward proper noun.

Quote:

It is also a very curious thing...
While you have a problem with Noah alienating you due to certain things you feel.... you feel... you have in "common" with him/his ideas, I wonder why it's so easy for you to attempt to alienate or castigate me simply because I guess I acknowledge that there may be somethings I share in common with Noah.

1) I have no problem with Noah "alienating" me. <shrugs>
2) I have no intention of "alienating" or "castigating" you. Heck we can be buddies if you'd like.

If in any of my discussions with you, you detect animosity allow me to apologize. I can be an ass and I state things forcefully. It's not personal and when I do something idiotic I call my own mental flatulence "brainfarts" and the like as well.

Quote:

I mean going to the extreme of worrying about whether I will place you in a category or assess whether you meet a criteria (that Noah presented) when I have not and never suggested that I would is pretty revealing.... and entertaining I might add.... because you know there is no basis in what I have said that would JuMp to that conclusion or delve into that kind of unfounded speculation.

I made very clear that I had no worries in this regard. That reading incomprehension is acting up again.

Quote:

I have not asked you to prove whether you are racist or not.

Never said you did... buddy (I can use that right? We're pals?)

Quote:

Frankly, I don't give a crap if you are. And I damn sure will not be holding my breath for you to raise your hand and begin a AA type of confessional. :wink:

My name is Craven de Kere, and... I'm a..

Laughing

Quote:

Whew!!!!!!!!! Now all of that is too funny. Thanks for the entertainment.

Yes, 'twas funny. Though I suspect I find it so for different reasons.

Quote:

Now can we get back to a real discussion.

There was a real discussion? I made it very clear that Noah's word was not something I'd get into an intellectual level of discussion about. Perhaps I have missed something? Or demonstrated reading incomprehension of my own?

Quote:

I asked you what I did about white supremacy, etc. in order to understand what it is that you object to.

I still don't think you understand my "objection". It was not in the definition. You said that he had not every given a blanket "you all are" accusation but I gave an example where he did. It's this kind of knee-jerk application that I had a qualm with.

It really precludes any real discussion.

Lemme do a skit (not verbatim).

Noah: Anyone who doesn't want black societal improvement is a racist.
Craven: Ok, I want black societal improvement. But how about making the criteria need, as opposed to race.
Noah (right after calling black people House Negroes, Uncle Tom's and such): Fine, but the reparations (or tax returns) should be given to black leaders, for who better to know black needs than a black leader.
Craven: I think that's stupid. Who better to know the black needs than the individual blacks themselves? Skip the middle man, let them have the money and they can decide to follow a leader if they want to.
Noah: You are all defenders of white supremacy! You do not want to see black improve because of your own self interest!

Now, in these exchanges, implicit in his reasoning was that a disagreement with him, no matter how trivial equated to not wantng black societal improvement.

Do you at least in theory see why one would have a qualm with this?

Quote:

If you would rather talk about my initial MLK post (response) then I'm more than happy to talk about that.

I'd have to read it first. I still have a huge post of yours to read so dunno when I'd get around to it. I would be interested. I don't know enough about him.

Quote:

BTW, I can and have accepted what you said about the abrasive tone of it and though I am not one who confuses style with substance... I take your words on that in advisement.

To be honest the tone was all that brought me here. Same with the first Noah. Since I don't much care about what people call me I sometimes draw the attention when there is hostility. I guess it's a better he argue with me than others, cause I know it won't bother me thing.

Quote:

It's funny though how it was so easy for you to continue to talk about Noah... FYI if someone would have address the MLK post I would have no reason to speak about or defend Noah. Me, personally, I will talk on any issue on almost any level. With an exception of my name, I did nothing to start this conversation about Noah... and I think you know that.

I agree, and frankly the witch hunts about user names here is idiotic. I failed to give you context but I really ddi want you to read the flame warrior's link first.

What it is is the "xenophobe" characterization there. On another forum many here used to frequent the quality fo discussions was reduced substantially by trolls who would duplicate user names. For this reason you find the hyperbolic sensitivity about that happening here.

Frabkly, the witchhunts have been right less than 1% of the time and they are idiotic, but I hope you at least understand the why now. It's not about Noah really.

0 Replies

You don't read very carefully, do you?

Quote:

Again, what is it evidence of then?

It is not evidence of anything, it is the result of whites being the majority of the population, something i've already mentioned.

0 Replies

When you quote me, have the courtesy not to edit what i wrote. I express my ideas in a context which matters to my argument, and to edit what i've written when quoting it, is to remove the context. That you don't understand the significance of the context is now evident. That you have consistently defended the ludicrous screed of Noah I is the evidence which i and anyone else reading this have that you apparently subscribe to those notions. You're not doing very well here, because you are ignoring the substance of the arguments of those to whom you respond--while defending, or at least appearing to defend, the arguments of Noah.

Whites have been the majority of the population of this nation since its inception. Therefore, they have had the upper hand in matters political and ecnonomic--its simple math. Specifically, Anglo-Saxon whites, and their German Protestant cousins, have dominated the polity. This is very germaine, in that true white supremacist movements such as the Lily Whites of the late nineteenth century have made a point that their goal was to repress the black man, and Irish Catholics, Polish Catholics, Italian Catholics and Jews. I've been trying to make a point that economic conditions in the United States, and one might add, in the rest of the industrialized world, are controlled by a wealthy elite, who actively work to maintain their privilege. This is why Noah's core argument about a white supremacist economic oppression are fatally flawed--the wealthy don't want me sitting at the table any more than they want Noah there. The argument is about skin color, because that is what Noah has made the basis of his screed. In so doing, he ignores the larger reality of the "global economy" of our contemporary world--privilege and its perpetuation.

0 Replies

Quote:

. Were the economic playing field completely level for all Americans (which it likely never will be), whites would still control the majority of economic resources, due to the simple fact that they are the majority of the population.

Is that suppose to be an intelligent or relevant point?
What is your purpose for saying that? to excuse your convoluted take that says, in essence, "the economic playing field will never be completely level for all Americans"...? What is that logical conclusion to that?

Since the 'playing will [likely] never be level' then:
[1] Why ever even try;
[2] Just admit that you can only do so much - i.e. submit to arbitrary limits.

Whether whites or whoever are the majority population and thereby control the 'majority' of the resources (again, my personal analysis does not stop with economics) or not should not or rather does not have any bearing on whether there is a level playing field. You are right there excusing the distribution of resources - i.e. the ability to level the playing field - to something that is based on skin color.... You know whites in the majority! :wink:

So I guess that's your way of saying or excusing what must be at least primarily "racially motivated" playing field "leveling". Of course, why would we expect whites to ever really completely "level" the playing field. They're in the majority... so I guess they don't have to or don't... dare I say have the interest in doing it "completely".

The flaw is in whatever you assume "leveling" the playing field is about.
The fact that whites are in the majority (the very type of argument your prognosticating said would soon be moot.... hmmmm..... I wonder why you felt the need to say this then Confused

) and would, I guess, naturally command the majority of the resources is like... man.... what?? A given. So you must also say why you feel like somehow the "leveling" the playing field is asking whites to take less than their share or whatever it is that caused you to say that.

The issue is whether whites are "dominating" more than their share of all facets of society from the distribution and control of resources to the very ideas of which we feel are important to us as a society. Of course, just because whites are in the majority it doesn't give the right to rule or overrule others in the society. So... you are patently correct in acknowledging that in the future when the demographics change then we will have to relate to each other differently.

The thing about it is that there is no excuse for it not to begin today.

A majority of opinion or whatever has no inherent value to it to honor it as sacred. We live in a multi-ethnic society so I think everything done should reflect that.

The issue with me is the effectual control of "whites" of more than just the majority of the resources AND INSTITUTIONS. I think that there should be at least proportional "control" which I guess you were trying to allude to (though you made a stickly implication that somehow "leveling" the PF is against that).

Personally, I believe that in everyone being about to "control" the resources and institutions that impact them. To the extent that in our segregated country (80% of whites live in communities that are mostly if not practically all white) that means concentrated pockets and ones in which there must be some "shared" control... I have absolutely no problem with that.

Such society arrangements should be fundamentally no different than arrangements you make when go out to eat with friend's or co-workers. There may be some occassions were you make "separate orders" - sandwiches - when there may also be situations where "combined orders" are made - pitchin' in on a pizza, etc.

0 Replies

I felt the need to point it out because you continue to trumpet Noah's argument about a white supremacist economy. The point is that a white majority means that the majority of economic resources will be in white hands, absent any historical conditions which gives any other class of people dominance over whites.

Not being at all certain what a "stickly implication" is supposed to mean, i will only observe that my argument all along is that economic control and opportunity are in the hands of a wealthy elite (hence the "unlikelihood" of there ever being a level economic playing field), without reference to race or ethnic origin. Noah from the outset claimed that there is a de facto institution of white economic supremacy. I find such a contention naive, because the economy is in the hands of a few, who have a death-grip on its institutions, and who will not give up their control without a fight. Once again, capitalism doesn't care what color you are, only whether or not you have the price of admission. To that extent, an argument about white economic supremacy and its perpetuation is an absurdity.

0 Replies

By the way, my remark about demographics and the future "complexion" of the nation is simply an observation that questions of race or ethnicity in a discussion of economics will one day, not far off, be moot.

0 Replies

Set, I agree with your last post, simply because our minority family are now connected by marriage to whites, blacks, and hispanics - even a few Asians. Wink

I think I saw a report a few years ago that the majority (over 50%) of our children are marrying outside our culture.

0 Replies

Quote:

Really, Noah, the simplest concepts trip you up.

If one were to claim that the use of the word "nigger" is by his own definition a "friendly" term I would not think it in any way unreasonable for the person being described as such to object to its use.

Would you? If someone claims they use it in a certain way that is not defamatory , would you accept their use on their terms?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject their definition. But again, you really should talk to someone who was offended by Noah.

Talk about a source of amusement!!! Laughing

It took you this long to come up with that rationale?
All you had to say a long time ago is that you or others "rejected" his definition and you could have been done with it. But, you have to do your song and dance.... Razz

0 Replies

Affirmative Action

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know