When a white guy says "War on _______", it always turns out to be "War on blacks". -- some white guy (mid conversation)
I've even heard some Sailerite supporters defend the war on drugs on these grounds.
Search This Blog
Pic
Contact
Currently Reading
Friends + Family
BlogFriends
Thinking Better
Econblogs
Pro-liberty
Political Engineering
Evolutionary realism
Health
Followers
Blog Archive
-
►
2013
(71)
- ► April 2013 (18)
- ► March 2013 (17)
- ► February 2013 (12)
- ► January 2013 (16)
-
►
2011
(639)
- ► December 2011 (43)
- ► November 2011 (51)
- ► October 2011 (74)
- ► September 2011 (31)
- ► August 2011 (25)
- ► April 2011 (75)
- ► March 2011 (60)
- ► February 2011 (59)
- ► January 2011 (57)
-
►
2010
(976)
- ► December 2010 (22)
- ► November 2010 (54)
- ► October 2010 (9)
- ► September 2010 (57)
- ► August 2010 (138)
- ► April 2010 (73)
- ► March 2010 (119)
- ► February 2010 (105)
- ► January 2010 (105)
-
►
2009
(376)
- ► December 2009 (66)
- ► November 2009 (85)
- ► October 2009 (56)
- ► September 2009 (73)
- ► August 2009 (49)
- ► April 2009 (5)
- ► February 2009 (1)
There was an error in this gadget
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
29 comments:
1. When someone says "war on X" X is always someone else.
2. If you try hard enough, someone who isn't a white guy is either a) A woman, b) A non-white guy.
3.You aren't going to get too much mainstream support for "us vs. them" against people you love/live-with/sleep-with (i.e. women) which leaves b) a different racial group.
4. By trying really hard, and squinting your eyes, and shining the light from the side, you can define "not white" as "black" because east asians act white anyway.
Now this is not an argument I'll go with, because steps 2 and 4 are really doing a lot of work here.
Step 2 ignores many different socio-economic groups. Eg. is the current ill feeling towards banks because Bank executives are mainly black? What about the widespread and long standing ill feeling towards lawyers?
Likewise, the "war on terror" ended up to be against Arabs and Afghans. Afghans especially are classic Caucasians. But they can be classified as "non-white" if you define "white" as "people like middle to upper class Americans".
Now we are getting somewhere. War is always against someone who isn't like [us]. If we define "not like us" as "black" then the circle is complete.
The conversation was mostly in reference to the first two rounds of war on nouns run here in the USA.
War on Poverty = Destroy the black family.
War on Drugs = Destroy black young men.
As usual, your formulation is much more thoughtful/careful than mine.
What does it mean when blacks say "War on Poverty" and call for the same programs that whites who use the term call for?
Were these white leftists intentionally tricking black leftists?
The war on cancer is a difficult case.
The "war" on drugs, poverty, etc. were initially genuine efforts toward a greater good. But no good deed goes unpunished.
Life, at some level, is inherently conflict: over resources, status, mates. If a White guy, mid sentence, starts wringing his hands about a "war on Blacks", it sounds like he just got a clue. Maybe he'll someday find out about the ongoing "war on Whites" and make an informed choice about which side to join.
RSF,
I have trouble believing you're not just trolling.
The single biggest known nurture-impact on child welfare is two-parent families.
Create a war on poverty that pushes the black single-parent family rate to 70% (or whatever it is).
Create a war on drugs that places 1/3 of all black men in prison at some point in their lives.
Effectively entirely destroy the black family over the course of 40 years via government action.
And you're worried about affirmative action as being in the same category?
Its throwing rocks vs. throwing nukes. And AA is the rocks.
If you wanted to join the war against the government which is causing both the giant problem for blacks and the tiny problem for whites...that might be sane.
I didn't have AA in mind in particular when I posted.
There is a general message from media and government that you can be made better by making someone else worse. The message is that we need to take away White guys power -- demographic, economic, political -- to make everyone else better. Good luck with that.
The problems you mention are independent of gov't. You argue too much for the power of gov't, which effectively negates your call for libertarianism. If the biggest hammer in the room is gov't, can you really expect it to be put under glass?
Aretae,
>>>And you're worried about affirmative action as being in the same category?
>>>Its throwing rocks vs. throwing nukes. And AA is the rocks.
The thinking behind disparate impact tinkering plays a part in every element of governance. Leftist tinkerers:
More whites than NAMs own homes. What are whites doing to NAMs (since we know that different groups behave the same) and how can we fix it so that home ownership is equal between the races?
More blacks than whites are being suspended from school for assault. What are whites doing to avoid punishment (since we know that different races behave the same) and how can we fix it?
AA is merely one leftist method for screwing up the world. The disparate impact model that drives it is ubiquitous.
But I like you're thinking that leftists are intentionally trying to destroy the black family by giving black voters the free shit that they demand.
It's what the government is doing, not what whites and NAMs are doing.
What is the government doing to screw things up for folks is a wonderful question.
I will grant that a lot of folks have a stupid anti-HBD problem. I don't. I have a problem with government creating policies which are toxic to black families, in the name of being helpful.
I have an issue with government's creating policies (AA) that screw poor white people in favor of partially black families (Obama's, my family) that need no help at all.
And I was comparing how government was screwing both sets.
War on Poverty was Lyndon Johnson. War on Drugs was George H. Bush. But that's the government's favorite approach. Name a policy nicely, and use it to screw the folks it's supposed to benefit. See: Affordable Care Act.
>>>It's what the government is doing, not what whites and NAMs are doing.
>>>What is the government doing to screw things up for folks is a wonderful question.
Like you, I don't believe the leftist credo "the government is us" but let's not fantasize here. Government is not unaffected by voter preference. Voters demand free shit for single mothers. The programs that you view as part of a leftist scheme to destroy the black family are the same programs that the CBC, most black intellectuals, and black citizens are demanding. Isn't your complaint with black voters, etc.? (And aren't you glad that we're importing more leftist voters to birth millions of leftist citizens?)
>>>I have an issue with government's creating policies (AA) that screw poor white people in favor of partially black families (Obama's, my family) that need no help at all.
No.
Disparate impact lunacy makes it hard to hire the best people. It forces employers to hire otherwise useless big HR staffs. It leads to govt inducing lenders to lend to bad risks. It forces principals to allow thuggish behavior to get suspension numbers in line.
It's not just about who, whom. It's also about slower economic growth, dangerous financial policies, extra-fucked schools, etc. I know that you and Caplan like to poo-poo the arguments about whites being screwed, but screwing whites is only a small part of the problem.
Meh,
One of the reasons you manage to annoy me as much as you do is that you directly contradict things I am saying ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE, often in the response to my post or comment where I state them.
I think you have a fictitious person in your head who you are arguing with, which is why you respond to lots of arguments that I explicitly disagree with in the post you're commenting on.
I try very hard to be civil. I occasionally fail (apologies for that, btw). But it's frustrating as hell when you're arguing against shit I'm not saying.
Example from this post:
Aretae: I have an issue with government's creating policies that screw poor white people...
Meh: I know that you and Caplan like to poo-poo the arguments about whites being screwed....
Really?!?!
Meh,
Well said on disparate impact lunacy.
Most government activities create all sorts of horrid second order effects like these, which often swamp the impact of the policy itself. I agree with that approach and therefore opposition, as applied to every single government activity (including policies that you want the government to do like immigration enforcement).
Meh,
I'm opposed to both socialist and fascist voters, and generally can't tell the difference.
And I don't believe that their votes makes any real difference in the policies enacted (see what Obamacare does, as opposed to what it promises).
>>>One of the reasons you manage to annoy me as much as you do is that you directly contradict things I am saying ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE, often in the response to my post or comment where I state them.
"Its throwing rocks vs. throwing nukes. And AA is the rocks."
In your worldview, AA is a nuisance for whites while welfare (that black voters demand) is mass murder? You don't think that this sounds dismissive of white complaints?
"2b. I spent a reasonable quantity of time (some hundreds of hours) with a bunch of Chicago firefighters for something I was doing once. From the guys I know, it would be downright nuts to think that they aren't smart enough to exclude folks they don't want via an IQ test, or that they aren't clannish enough to do so on purpose."
Municipalities should not test prospective firefighters for IQ above shoe tying level because you believe that intelligence matters little in emergency responders who have to make decisions affecting millions of dollars worth of property and human lives. Meaning: whites have little reason to complain about AA for very low IQ black firefighter test takers because IQ testing is racist. http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/6249
Sounds dismissive of white complaints about AA to me.
Meh,
1. My analogy was chosen carefully.
Throwing rocks, as is done by anti-globalization mobs, sometimes hurts people, and sometimes kills people. It's not bunnies and flowers. It's bad stuff.
And the war on poverty + war on drugs has effectively destroyed the black family. That's not "hurts folks". My assertion is, I thought clearly, that AA is bad, and the "wars" a lot worse.
2. There are 2 questions at hand regarding firefighters. A. What level of importance is IQ relative to other skills? B. Why are the firefighters running tests that exclude blacks?
You seem to think the answer to A is the only interesting one. I am unimpressed by thoughts that firefighters need an even moderate IQ. However, the center of my analysis is that I think B is at least as relevant as A.
Most arguments between sane folks come down to the question of "What is important?", rather than "What is true". Most arguments stay arguments because folks don't recognize that it's fundamentally a question of value, not truth.
Aretae,
>>>War on Poverty was Lyndon Johnson. War on Drugs was George H. Bush. But that's the government's favorite approach. Name a policy nicely, and use it to screw the folks it's supposed to benefit.
You're not being clear on who's doing what. You like to claim that all actions are by individuals, but then say that "the government" is using mis-named policies to screw black folks. So:
1)Which elements of "the government" are doing what in the War on Poverty to screw blacks?
2)If these policies are set by (mostly) nice white leftists, are they screwing blacks on purpose? And if so, to what end? Job security? Hatred of the other? Why are they offering their same solutions for poor whites?
3)If these policies are boosted by approximately all black pundits and politicians, are they screwing blacks on purpose? If so, why? Like, does Jamelle Bouie love black pain, or does he think that making things bad enough for blacks will bring on the true People's Revolution?
4)If black voters are demanding programs that you claim are destroying black families, is it because they're stupid? Some other reason?
5)"If you wanted to join the war against the government which is causing both the giant problem for blacks and the tiny problem for whites... " just sounds dismissive of complaints by whites. When I think of tiny problems caused by government action, I think "why are the feds still minting pennies that are not worth bending over to pick up?" I don't think "why is the federal government pointing guns at people and demanding that they hire morons to important positions?"
The people in the government who are doing as the law says are screwing the blacks. More complicatedly, the people who started the program completely screwed, perhaps irrevocably, the poor black families, and after that it's hell to recover. Lyndon Johnson was the one responsible. After that thorough destruction, it's unclear what path there is out.
2) The policy was built by Lyndon Johnson, who was well known for giving a shit for roughly nothing but power. Screw the black families forever? no big deal. I think I can get some votes.
3+4) Roughly ALL people in the US like Social Security...especially once they're receiving it. However, net, social security makes everyone worse off. It's a standard human cognition problem. Just like anti-free-trade is a standard human cognition problem.
5) I'm also dismissive of entirely valid complaints by Lebanese of how Israel displaces them, when compared to Saddam Hussein's approximately 1 million murdered over the course of 20 years.
It's a bad thing for sure...and seriously unjust...but the scale is not comparable.
US Imperialism has bad features, but Communism was evil. Soviet Russia killed 40 million people in 70 years, and Mao killed 60 million people in 20 years. Not comparable issues.
Damage to blacks by government and Damage to whites in favor of blacks by government is a similar issue.
Aretae,
1-4) So you admit that the War on Poverty is being done by the whole of society, not just "the government" and that the people who are the most harmed are choosing to "war" against themselves. This means that there is no war. It's just a stupid metaphor for a batch of government policies that nearly every leftist on the planet (a group of people you love to defend) considers to be the bedrock of a decent society.
And really, when did you drink the Great Man Theory of History Kool-Aid? Johnson couldn't just make this shit happen; he was part of a big movement of leftists.
Finally, I look forward to using the phrase "tiny problem for X" when you complain in the future about almost any government action. Since you stubbornly insist that TPFX is not poo-pooing/diminishing a claim ...
Meh,
Johnson was perhaps the best political deal-maker we've ever had as a president. And he made Nixon look morally upright in how he treated his enemies. And he was far to the government-ward side of Kennedy, who was assassinated. If you're gonna pick a president without whom stuff wouldn't have happened, you're perhaps best off picking Johnson.
2. Surely you're not that naive about government action. The Government is a group of people who love to make people think that there's not a difference between government and society.
The War on Poverty is prefered in principle by many/most people in most rich countries. However, the implmentation details matter far more than the name of the program.
The ACA (Affordable Care Act) is liked by many as an idea, especially the young, cool people. The fact that the ACA's primary function is to raise insurance costs on the young in order to pay for the old is purely a result of Obama's sales team and the Blue Cross lobbyists who wrote the entire bill.
There are folks who want a war on Poverty (roughly everyone in a rich country). And then there are the folks who design the war on poverty, which turns out to be a poverty trap instead and destroys the black family (a few folks who write laws).
The quote (War on ... means) is a truth about the distinction between what "the people" want, and what the government does while claiming it's what "the people" want.
Aretae,
Why are you muddying this argument with talk of Opapacare? If you want to convince someone that the WOP was designed to destroy the black family (which you've mentioned your wife believes) then you should point to elements of the WOP that you think are aimed at that purpose.
How does the WOP differ radically from what most other countries do, what leftist American whites would do, and what blacks demand? By my estimation, the consensus left view of the WOP is that it's just not redistributive enough.
Meh,
I think that constitutes an attempted rhetorical trick on your part.
Speaker talks. You ask a question or make a controversial statement. Speaker gives an answer using an analogy. Then you ask why the responder is talking about the topic.
I continue to have a hard time believing you are not just trolling.
Aretae,
I'm trying to get you to actually start arguing the case that the WOP was aimed at destroying black families! You haven't made any arguments! I don't need a rehashing of Bootleggers and Baptists in regards to Opapacare.
What did "the government" do to "the black family" that was any different than what leftists would do anywhere? Read your comments. You haven't even tried to answer this basic question.
If you're going to make the tin-foil-hat claim that "the government" is trying to destroy the black family, you need to make strong, specific arguments.
Meh, I never made a claim that it was different than what statists would do anywhere. "Oh look, there's a problem, let's have the state solve it." Poverty, Drugs, Immigration. "Let's have the state solve it." It's pretty much the statist rallying cry.
2. I never made a claim that it's "trying" to destroy the black family. I made the claim that the WoP's result has very obviously been the destruction of the black family. Ditto the War on Drugs.
Aretae,
>>>When a white guy says "War on _______", it always turns out to be "War on blacks". -- some white guy (mid conversation)
>>>I've even heard some Sailerite supporters defend the war on drugs on these grounds.
>>>Name a policy nicely, and use it to screw the folks it's supposed to benefit. See: Affordable Care Act.
>>>2) The policy was built by Lyndon Johnson, who was well known for giving a shit for roughly nothing but power. Screw the black families forever? no big deal. I think I can get some votes.
>>>2. I never made a claim that it's "trying" to destroy the black family. I made the claim that the WoP's result has very obviously been the destruction of the black family. Ditto the War on Drugs.
Meh,
As far as I can tell you just demonstrated that I did what I said. Talked about effects not intents. LBJ didn't care effects, just votes. Sailerites have no power, so they didn't build it, they just like the effect. ACA was named to pass, and then constructed to benefit insurance companies..and it incidentally screws everyone else.
5 coherent statements about the impact of the policy, never talking intent.
And...I may well not communicate perfectly. I'm really busy these days, what with the 4th kid, and contract work in addition to my normal workweek. I have tried to talk about effect, not intent, for the entire time, and the only time I referenced intent was in pointing out that Foseti (a Sailerite, who is therefore non-influential), in particular, likes this effect of the drug war.
I have intended to never say (different than never intended to say) that this was a goal...just that once politics gets in play, that's the result of the last 2 "War on"'s...and by pattern-matching, it's a good guess what the next "War on" will turn into. Not because of malice, but because of the structure of politics, median voter, public choice, principal-agent, poor don't impact policy, etc.
If I have miscommunicated, I apologize.
Aretae,
>>>Name a policy nicely, and use it to screw the folks it's supposed to benefit.
>>>ACA was named to pass, and then constructed to benefit insurance companies..and it incidentally screws everyone else.
These are two very different claims. The first says that Opapacare (and by extension, the WoP) was designed as a tool to screw the people it's supposed to help. The second says this is accidental. I know you want to say that this is a miscommunication, but I believe that you're backpedaling from an obnoxious post and you won't admit it. Instead you're calling your commenters trolls for pointing out some obvious flaws.
>>>Quote of the Day:
>>>When a white guy says "War on __________", it always turns out to be "War on blacks". -- some white guy (mid conversation)
>>>I've even heard some Sailerite supporters defend the war on drugs on these grounds.
If this post was never about intent, then why does it start with "a white guy says" instead of "a liberal says" and why do you immediately follow it by saying that Sailerites (racist whites) like the policy because of this effect? The quote has every liberal's favorite oppressor/oppressed with the white (no mention of liberal, only Sailerites) claiming he's helping when instead he's waging war (war usually implies intent, right?} followed by saying that egregious racist whites are especially fond of a policy that harms black families.
Maybe you just don't know what you believe.
Aretae,
I'm trying to imagine your view of Sailer, et al:
DOJ, CDC, HHS: "Marriage among black parents is skyrocketing and drug dealing and the attendant violence is dropping rapidly within black communities."
Sailer, et al: "Well, shit! What do we do now?"
Post a Comment