Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Why should an Indian (I'm assuming you mean citizen of the country next to China) shopkeeper's son receive benefits from Americans in going to an American school.

Wow. You're getting very nationalistic now. I thought you Dems loved migrants...or at least wanted us to think you did, even if you don't.

I'm suggesting that competent candidates for anything don't need DEI. And since some people claim DEI is necessary, it must be the case that they think the recipients are incompetent. Otherwise, they'd have no need of DEI. And Asians get none, need none, and do exceeding well, even if they've suffered terrible circumstances and discrimination personally. So why do DEI advocates believe that's impossible for blacks?

I can think of two reasons, and not mutually exclusive at all: one is that they secretly think blacks are inferior, and thus apt for their patronage. The other is that the whole thing is a grift, and having a "pet" demographic to service is essential to their DEI industry.

Both are good hypotheses, I'd say. They explain the irrational selectivity of DEI very well.

I can't speak for everyone but I'm for due process and humaneness in handling illegal migrants and for reciprocity with American Blacks and Native Americans. That's hardly "nationalism", when I think of the word "nationalism" I think of "my country right or wrong".

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.

...an American black kid might not be able to make it into a school due to grades or test scores,...

Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently, Mein Kampf didn't mention anything about Jews in concentration camps. Should I read it just to figure out what Richard Spencer might believe? I'm sure he's a likable guy (if you aren't a black person in an 'affirmative action' program). I've always wanted to sympathize with white supremacists, maybe that will help me understand them?

This odd type of outburst, as if an argument, illustrates and typifies a “structure of interpretation” that I describe as having been installed in you.

How to combat that? How to get around it? I cannot offer any help.

The point, however, is to see clearly that such rigid constructs exist. They are bolstered by people who (I guess) find them useful. I find them entirely stupid. It will not help you to understand counter-reaction in our present.

Worry about your own "structures of interpretation" and I'll worry about mine. I try to keep my mind relatively clean of most garbage. Though shutting out naked ladies is a bit harder to accomplish.

[Gary Childress]

Wow. You're getting very nationalistic now. I thought you Dems loved migrants...or at least wanted us to think you did, even if you don't.

I'm suggesting that competent candidates for anything don't need DEI. And since some people claim DEI is necessary, it must be the case that they think the recipients are incompetent. Otherwise, they'd have no need of DEI. And Asians get none, need none, and do exceeding well, even if they've suffered terrible circumstances and discrimination personally. So why do DEI advocates believe that's impossible for blacks?

I can think of two reasons, and not mutually exclusive at all: one is that they secretly think blacks are inferior, and thus apt for their patronage. The other is that the whole thing is a grift, and having a "pet" demographic to service is essential to their DEI industry.

Both are good hypotheses, I'd say. They explain the irrational selectivity of DEI very well.

I can't speak for everyone but I'm for due process and humaneness in handling illegal migrants and for reciprocity with American Blacks and Native Americans. That's hardly "nationalism", when I think of the word "nationalism" I think of "my country right or wrong".

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.

...an American black kid might not be able to make it into a school due to grades or test scores,...

Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

Yeah, keep reaching. I'm sure you'll actually hit something that will stick one of these days.

[Gary Childress]

Wow. You're getting very nationalistic now. I thought you Dems loved migrants...or at least wanted us to think you did, even if you don't.

I'm suggesting that competent candidates for anything don't need DEI. And since some people claim DEI is necessary, it must be the case that they think the recipients are incompetent. Otherwise, they'd have no need of DEI. And Asians get none, need none, and do exceeding well, even if they've suffered terrible circumstances and discrimination personally. So why do DEI advocates believe that's impossible for blacks?

I can think of two reasons, and not mutually exclusive at all: one is that they secretly think blacks are inferior, and thus apt for their patronage. The other is that the whole thing is a grift, and having a "pet" demographic to service is essential to their DEI industry.

Both are good hypotheses, I'd say. They explain the irrational selectivity of DEI very well.

I can't speak for everyone but I'm for due process and humaneness in handling illegal migrants and for reciprocity with American Blacks and Native Americans. That's hardly "nationalism", when I think of the word "nationalism" I think of "my country right or wrong".

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.

...an American black kid might not be able to make it into a school due to grades or test scores,...

Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

I said it's been around 3 generations since JIm Crow (maybe 4). Try to keep up with my thoughts. I know you're more than a little slow but if you try hard maybe you'll learn something. Heck, maybe you'll figure out how stupid it is to believe in talking snakes which your schooling apparently must have brainwashed you with.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't speak for everyone but I'm for due process and humaneness in handling illegal migrants and for reciprocity with American Blacks and Native Americans. That's hardly "nationalism", when I think of the word "nationalism" I think of "my country right or wrong".

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.

...an American black kid might not be able to make it into a school due to grades or test scores,...

Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

Yeah, keep reaching. I'm sure you'll actually hit something that will stick one of these days.

You can't do it, can you? It doesn't even make sense. How could something 400 years ago make people today disadvantaged, and why would we drop the standards for people who are the "equals" of everybody else?

DEI advocates actually believe this stuff. You and I surely shouldn't. But then, you and I are not racists.

[Gary Childress]

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.


Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

Yeah, keep reaching. I'm sure you'll actually hit something that will stick one of these days.

You can't do it, can you? It doesn't even make sense. How could something 400 years ago make people today disadvantaged, and why would we drop the standards for people who are the "equals" of everybody else?

DEI advocates actually believe this stuff. You and I surely shouldn't. But then, you and I are not racists.

See my second response to your post.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

There are a few different possibilities, but they all extend from historical issues. First, primitive Africans from cultures and societies that were not comparable in development to European cultures, were forced under quite atrocious conditions to "labor in the plantations of the White man's will". Ripped out of their own context resulted in a break with their own genuine selves. None of this was by their choice or desire. They were wrested out of their own context and 'forced' first to become slaves, with a very limiting status and very limited agency, and then also forced by circumstances post-slavery to 'perform' in a culture, indeed in the structures of civilization, that was unfamiliar to them. All around them were systems of enclosure.

If one reads Black American resistance literature, one notices a very strong resistance to all of these facts taken together. Black identity is tremendously problematic because of the issue that they had been forced on every level into roles that they did not choose. The search for authentic Black identity resulted, often, in structures of identity that were resisting and rebellious.

After all, under the circumstances of their history, how could any given Black who became aware of his history, simply agree to be the subject of civilizing processes. The quest for authentic 'Black Identity' within a European civilizational structure has always been a struggle. Take Malcolm X as an example: the recognition that the entire structure was an extension of the slave-condition was crucial to his realizations. His need to found identity on another religious model -- Islam -- was a part of a need to create a distinct and genuine counter-identity.

The problem with those who are stuck in a position that does not allow any recognition of race-difference is that it is essentially built on false-assertions. There are many indications that the different races of the world developed differently, have different aptitudes and strengths, and 'perform' at different levels. Certainly those differences are not huge, yet they (are believed by some who refer to science) as being real.

But we all know that such a statement cannot be allowed to be true even if it really is true. That is where true 'political correctness' shows itself.

Personally, I have no conclusive position. I am aware however of various researchers whose findings do suggest race-based differences.

[Immanuel Can]

I can't speak for everyone but I'm for due process and humaneness in handling illegal migrants and for reciprocity with American Blacks and Native Americans. That's hardly "nationalism", when I think of the word "nationalism" I think of "my country right or wrong".

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.

...an American black kid might not be able to make it into a school due to grades or test scores,...

Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

I said it's been around 3 generations since JIm Crow (maybe 4).

Well, Jim Crow was the Democrats' program, as was the KKK, and slavery itself, so maybe that's why the Dems figure they owe something. That's their problem, maybe. But even Jim Crow hasn't been in...let's say at least 2 generations, just to be generous. You'll need to explain how somebody who's never experienced any of them at any point in his/her life, is permanently less capable than all other demographic groups, and how the colour of his/her skin tells you whether he/she had ancestors who were slaves, or those who were slave owners (as some blacks were), or those who came to America from somewhere else a few years ago and never had any such ancestors at all.

Meanwhile, I still can't see how you can argue that it's made a middle-class kid from a Chicago suburb permanently in need of DEI, and a Chinese first-generation migrant not be in need of the same. But maybe you can explain.

Meanwhile, I have a grudge against the French. A bunch of Normans came across the channel in 1066, and since then, I just can't seem to concentrate in school...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Worry about your own "structures of interpretation" and I'll worry about mine. I try to keep my mind relatively clean of most garbage. Though shutting out naked ladies is a bit harder to accomplish.

I am only worried about yours insofar as there is a rising tide of very different, and contrary ideas, that is developing around you certainly, but around all of us. I.e. in our cultures. Eventually the struggles will culminate in more open social conflicts.

And it does not matter much what you choose to see as *garbage* since other people do not see their ideas and concerns in that way. By your refusal to understand them you will not be able to refute them (if that is your object) and life will simply get more and more confusing to you, resulting in increasing moods of powerlessness and desperation.

[Gary Childress]

Well, you're certainly unsympathetic to the Asian migrants who aim to get into college. You seem to think they deserve to be discriminated-against, in fact, since they have it even harder than whites...and you seem to think that blacks cannot meet even the regular standards without DEI help. So it's hard not to see that as a little discriminatory on both ends.


Well, that's exactly what DEI people believe: that blacks cannot do it. But they're just racists. Or else, maybe you can explain to me why if something bad happened to somebody's great-great-great-great-great-ancestor, going back (as you say) 400 years, how that means his present-day descendents, including those from the lower, middle and upper classes, are permanently incapable of meeting basic standards others can...but please, don't make the explanation racist.

I said it's been around 3 generations since JIm Crow (maybe 4).

Well, Jim Crow was the Democrats' program, as was the KKK, and slavery itself, so maybe that's why the Dems figure they owe something. That's their problem, maybe. But even Jim Crow hasn't been in...let's say at least 2 generations, just to be generous. You'll need to explain how somebody who's never experienced any of them at any point in his/her life, is permanently less capable than all other demographic groups, and how the colour of his/her skin tells you whether he/she had ancestors who were slaves, or those who were slave owners (as some blacks were), or those who came to America from somewhere else a few years ago and never had any such ancestors at all.

Meanwhile, I still can't see how you can argue that it's made a middle-class kid from a Chicago suburb permanently in need of DEI, and a Chinese first-generation migrant not be in need of the same. But maybe you can explain.

Meanwhile, I have a grudge against the French. A bunch of Normans came across the channel in 1066, and since then, I just can't seem to concentrate in school...

OK. So there's an infamous gap in IQ scores between whites and blacks, which Charles Murray (a conservative thinker) infamously wrote about and promoted. Why would there be an IQ gap if it's not due to environmental factors? Are you suggesting that "2 generations" is long enough to erase environmental factors? And if environmental factors aren't the cause, then what is?

[Immanuel Can]

The problem with those who are stuck in a position that does not allow any recognition of race-difference is that it is essentially built on false-assertions.

It is certainly false that one generation's trauma gets magically transferred down the line indefinitely. I'll buy one generation, maybe two by way of indirect conditions; but by three generations, everybody's out of excuses. If there have been three generations of equal opportunity, then any talk of inferiority is simply racist.

[Immanuel Can]

I said it's been around 3 generations since JIm Crow (maybe 4).

Well, Jim Crow was the Democrats' program, as was the KKK, and slavery itself, so maybe that's why the Dems figure they owe something. That's their problem, maybe. But even Jim Crow hasn't been in...let's say at least 2 generations, just to be generous. You'll need to explain how somebody who's never experienced any of them at any point in his/her life, is permanently less capable than all other demographic groups, and how the colour of his/her skin tells you whether he/she had ancestors who were slaves, or those who were slave owners (as some blacks were), or those who came to America from somewhere else a few years ago and never had any such ancestors at all.

Meanwhile, I still can't see how you can argue that it's made a middle-class kid from a Chicago suburb permanently in need of DEI, and a Chinese first-generation migrant not be in need of the same. But maybe you can explain.

Meanwhile, I have a grudge against the French. A bunch of Normans came across the channel in 1066, and since then, I just can't seem to concentrate in school...

OK. So there's an infamous gap in IQ scores between whites and blacks, which Charles Murray (a conservative thinker) infamously wrote about and promoted.

I didn't. And I don't follow Murray. But if he said that, he's agreeing with the DEI people, and his explanation is racist the way theirs is.

But please, do answer my question. How does the kid from a well-to-do Chicago suburb merit DEI privileges, and the impoverished child of an Asian merits being discriminated against? I'm really interested to know how DEI advocates explain that one without agreeing with Murray.

[Gary Childress]

Worry about your own "structures of interpretation" and I'll worry about mine. I try to keep my mind relatively clean of most garbage. Though shutting out naked ladies is a bit harder to accomplish.

I am only worried about yours insofar as there is a rising tide of very different, and contrary ideas, that is developing around you certainly, but around all of us. I.e. in our cultures. Eventually the struggles will culminate in more open social conflicts.

And it does not matter much what you choose to see as *garbage* since other people do not see their ideas and concerns in that way. By your refusal to understand them you will not be able to refute them (if that is your object) and life will simply get more and more confusing to you, resulting in increasing moods of powerlessness and desperation.

So I should jump on the "bandwagon" of misled and miseducated white college students (or college dropouts in some cases)? I should learn from people like Richard Spencer? Again, am I missing anything because I'm not reading Mein Kampf?

[Gary Childress]

Well, Jim Crow was the Democrats' program, as was the KKK, and slavery itself, so maybe that's why the Dems figure they owe something. That's their problem, maybe. But even Jim Crow hasn't been in...let's say at least 2 generations, just to be generous. You'll need to explain how somebody who's never experienced any of them at any point in his/her life, is permanently less capable than all other demographic groups, and how the colour of his/her skin tells you whether he/she had ancestors who were slaves, or those who were slave owners (as some blacks were), or those who came to America from somewhere else a few years ago and never had any such ancestors at all.

Meanwhile, I still can't see how you can argue that it's made a middle-class kid from a Chicago suburb permanently in need of DEI, and a Chinese first-generation migrant not be in need of the same. But maybe you can explain.

Meanwhile, I have a grudge against the French. A bunch of Normans came across the channel in 1066, and since then, I just can't seem to concentrate in school...

OK. So there's an infamous gap in IQ scores between whites and blacks, which Charles Murray (a conservative thinker) infamously wrote about and promoted.

I didn't. And I don't follow Murray. But if he said that, he's agreeing with the DEI people, and his explanation is racist the way theirs is.

But please, do answer my question. How does the kid from a well-to-do Chicago suburb merit DEI privileges, and the impoverished child of an Asian merits being discriminated against? I'm really interested to know how DEI advocates explain that one without agreeing with Murray.

Answer my question first. How do you explain a fact that Charles Murray jumped on to point out? That there's a disparity in IQ scores? Is it nature or nurture? Is it innate qualities or environment that produce it? Or if it's not one of those two, then what explains it?

[Immanuel Can]

OK. So there's an infamous gap in IQ scores between whites and blacks, which Charles Murray (a conservative thinker) infamously wrote about and promoted.

I didn't. And I don't follow Murray. But if he said that, he's agreeing with the DEI people, and his explanation is racist the way theirs is.

But please, do answer my question. How does the kid from a well-to-do Chicago suburb merit DEI privileges, and the impoverished child of an Asian merits being discriminated against? I'm really interested to know how DEI advocates explain that one without agreeing with Murray.

Answer my question first.

I asked first. When you answer, I'll answer.