"Limitations of Black Conservative Thought" An Article

[JEBland]

Article of the same name (might need to subscribe to Quillette to read the whole thing, I don't know offhand):
https://quillette.com/2021/06/24/the-limitations-of-black-conservative-thought/

I have my own thoughts on the article, but would like to hear INGO's thoughts first.

 

[wtburnette]

Like most black conservatives, I am not convinced that racism/anti-racism is the best framework for advancing racial equality, that “caste” is the best metaphor for describing race relations in our country, or that movements to “defund” the police will decrease crime in majority black neighborhoods. But what do black conservatives offer other than criticism of progressive ideas?

I don't think that's true. Black conservatives offer meritocracy as the solution, which is to stop whining about your victim status, study hard, work hard and gain some success. There are a bunch of issues, but they can't be addressed until the black people stop loving the racism/slavery cards. Yes, like so many other peoples in the world, your ancestors were slaves. Deal with it. You're not special. For one thing, your own people sold your ancestors into slavery and for another, if they hadn't you would not have the opportunities you do. The worst thing ever done to the black people was the welfare state and in competition is the victimhood mentality. Look how most black youths look to rappers and gangsters as their role models, instead of great men like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson and more.

Part of the problem is that they see "racial injustice" where it doesn't exist. They talk about how more of the people in prisons are black, when the reason is that more black people committed crimes. They talk about how there are unarmed blacks killed by police, completely ignoring that more white unarmed criminals are killed by police. Also ignoring that in all, or at least most cases the situation was due to them committing a crime and then not obeying the police was they were apprehended. The black people have been indoctrinated by their own and choose to believe that's the way it is. The most successful blacks I've ever known, or heard about are those who choose to be part of the American community instead of the black community. Study hard, work hard, move up due to their own work and principles instead of sitting back and bemoaning past injustices. Life isn't all about race. If you let go with that viewpoint and just view yourself as another citizen of this great nation, you free yourself of shackles that hold you back. It's hard to go against the politics of your entire family and community, but people of other races do the same thing. I have a friend who is a conservative, while his entire family are democrats. He moved out of state to pursue his interests and to succeed, instead of staying where he was and bemoaning his lack of opportunities in a Democrat run and destroyed Flint, MI. These types of choices don't only belong to blacks.

And of course, Thomas Sowell says it much better than I ever could:

We no longer live in a society in which racism is a significant hurdle for black people. The primary reason some groups succeed in our country while other groups, unfortunately, struggle, sometimes for generations, is cultural. A group’s norms and values—not its race or ethnicity—determines its relative success. The progressive assumption that black people are the victims of subtle or not-so-subtle forms of racism is simply mistaken. The success of black and other non-white immigrant groups proves that racism cannot explain the persistence of racial inequality.

 

[jamil]

I just wanted to make a point about this paragraph:

"That race is less influential in determining the fates of black people than it once was is a statement with which even the most dogmatic anti-racists and defund-the-police activists can agree. What makes the “margin of choice” claim the pillar of a distinctly conservative worldview are the arguments that follow. The individual is the “seat of all energy, creativity, motivation and power,” Steele writes. It is individual actors, not families, communities, or governments, who possess the power to change their lives. We are each largely, if not entirely, he insists, responsible for our successes and failures."

The context is a concept forwarded by Michael Steele, the "margin of choice" is the idea that Black people have choices available to them, regardless of their circumstances, the choices they make can make their lives better or worse, and those choices that make their lives better are available to all Black people. That if they don't make those "good" choices, they're responsible for successes and failures.

A reasonable criticism for that is that those choices are constrained by circumstances and the character, quality, ability, intelligence, of the person. Let's just call all that "moxie". It's not always easy to make the right choices. It's reasonable that it takes increasingly more moxie to make the "right" choices in the face of progressively higher adversity. So if a given population faces greater adversity, we could expect that fewer people would make the right choices, not because as a group they have lower character than some other group, but because as a group they face more adversity than other groups. And given that adversity, only the people whose moxie meets the adversity, can overcome it. So think of it like a sieve where adversity would relate to the fineness of the sieve. A finer sieve only allows particles that can fit between the mesh. So then adversity allows only those with the moxie sufficient to meet it to be successful.

So Steele's "margin of choice" argument, falls short of acknowledging that point. If white people face the same adversities, we'd see similar results. Only the people with sufficient "moxie" to overcome their obstacles, make it through them. Steele's argument falls short because it is purely an individualistic argument. And as an avowed individualist, I still have to acknowledge that group dynamics exist, and allow the extent to which they do exist, to inform my opinion about a matter where it's relevant.

So I think the author is on point with the criticism against the Steele argument, that once people embrace personal responsibility, it empowers them to overcome those adversities. The part missing is that not everyone can possess the moxie it takes to do it. And because there is still more adversity facing Black people, more Black people will fail as a group.

And I think I need to say this because people not paying close attention might think this is a reiteration of the soft racism of low expectations. I don't see a reason to conclude that Black people lack the same "moxie" that white people have. White people fall through the cracks too, because there's nothing magical about "whiteness" that makes us have all have it. Just look at the rural methlands. You put white people through the same adversity and you'll see more white people fail than if they didn't have to face those same hurdles.

 

[jamil]

I don't think that's true. Black conservatives offer meritocracy as the solution, which is to stop whining about your victim status, study hard, work hard and gain some success.

That works for people with the moxie to overcome it. We have plenty of white people who try to enter the victim olympics. Who don't study hard, or work hard, or whatever. Add the extra stigma to being Black and that makes the sieve a bit finer for Blacks than it does whites. But that's not to say that Blacks don't have a role in helping to remove whatever stigmas that remain.

There are a bunch of issues, but they can't be addressed until the black people stop loving the racism/slavery cards. Yes, like so many other peoples in the world, your ancestors were slaves. Deal with it. You're not special.

In a way they are special. After slavery ended they Black people couldn't just assimilate with the rest of society thereafter, because they don't look like the rest of society. Historically, when slaves of same race in other societies ceased to be slaves, over time they eventually intermarried, and essentially assimilated. When white people have white slaves, or dark-skinned people have dark-skinned slaves, after a few generations there's not the physical difference that keep the stigmas alive. They *can* assimilate into the larger society after just a few generations. That didn't happen with Black slaves in the US, because they carried the stigma of being thought of as less than human by most white people even after many generations. As many generations pass that stigma has became less prominent to people, but it took a civil rights movement to get us even headed in that direction. Even now, there are still remnants. We're not there yet.

For one thing, your own people sold your ancestors into slavery and for another, if they hadn't you would not have the opportunities you do. The worst thing ever done to the black people was the welfare state and in competition is the victimhood mentality. Look how most black youths look to rappers and gangsters as their role models, instead of great men like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson and more.

Just a couple of points here. Yes, other Black people sold them into slavery. That's not really relevant for the extent to which there are still remnants of the stigma of being Black. But I completely agree with the fact that the welfare state has exacerbated the "victimhood" mentality, and that the "victimhood" mentality itself is a large factor in perpetuating the adversity for Black people. If Black people could take all the reasons for the negative stereotypes to linger, the point where society progresses beyond caring about skin color would be hastened that much more. Human nature is what it is, and so attitudes need help changing.

Part of the problem is that they see "racial injustice" where it doesn't exist. They talk about how more of the people in prisons are black, when the reason is that more black people committed crimes. They talk about how there are unarmed blacks killed by police, completely ignoring that more white unarmed criminals are killed by police. Also ignoring that in all, or at least most cases the situation was due to them committing a crime and then not obeying the police was they were apprehended.

I think this is mostly true. Everyone needs to acknowledge what is true and what is untrue. It's true that there are more black people in prison proportionately. And it's not the case that it's only because the "white" institutions just arrest black criminals at a higher rate than white criminals. I think because of things like stop-and-frisk, that is at least a little true. But not in sufficient scale to explain the difference. And when we look at police shooting black people at higher rates, if we look at the rate of deaths per encounter with police, black people are actually killed by police slightly less than whites. Last statistic I looked at, 4 white people are killed per 100K encounters, compared to 3 black people. So the imbalance is caused because Black people encounter police more. Institutionally racist policies, which I would grant stop-and-frisk is a rare example, accounts for some of the greater number of encounters, but not even close to all.

The black people have been indoctrinated by their own and choose to believe that's the way it is. The most successful blacks I've ever known, or heard about are those who choose to be part of the American community instead of the black community. Study hard, work hard, move up due to their own work and principles instead of sitting back and bemoaning past injustices. Life isn't all about race.

The ideal condition for society is for people not to care about what color a person's skin is. I know the wokies don't like that. They think not caring about skin color is actually racist, which is absurd and mock-worthy. And there's a lot of truth to the "indoctrination". Too many Black AND White people are convinced that all the far left intellectuals, and the race-opportunists like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etcetera, are correct. It's not helping.

If you let go with that viewpoint and just view yourself as another citizen of this great nation, you free yourself of shackles that hold you back. It's hard to go against the politics of your entire family and community, but people of other races do the same thing. I have a friend who is a conservative, while his entire family are democrats. He moved out of state to pursue his interests and to succeed, instead of staying where he was and bemoaning his lack of opportunities in a Democrat run and destroyed Flint, MI. These types of choices don't only belong to blacks.

And of course, Thomas Sowell says it much better than I ever could:

Freeing the shackles though, ask I said, takes greater moxie. Not everyone has it. If that were the only answer, conservative intellectuals could probably convince some people who have it to find it and use it. I think ending the welfare state would help, not just in Black communities, but also the methland trailer parks. Encouraging personal responsibility would help, not just in Black communities, but also in the methland trailer parks. I bring that up to emphasize the point that all groups have people who just don't have the character, the will, intelligence, right stuff, the moxie, to pull themselves up or there wouldn't be methland trailer parks. There wouldn't be inner city slums.

We'll always have the poor. And poor areas always have more crime than affluent areas. I think where we need to be is a place where we care 0% about skin color, and race accounts for 0% of the reason black people are in those places.

 

[jamil]

Sorry. Just feeling a little wordy today. It'll probably pass.

 

[Ingomike]

Sorry. Just feeling a little wordy today. It'll probably pass.

Understatement…. LOL

 

[jamil]

Understatement…. LOL

I haz teh werds.

 

[wtburnette]

Sorry. Just feeling a little wordy today. It'll probably pass.

I had that feeling earlier and it did pass...

 

[patience0830]

That works for people with the moxie to overcome it. We have plenty of white people who try to enter the victim olympics. Who don't study hard, or work hard, or whatever. Add the extra stigma to being Black and that makes the sieve a bit finer for Blacks than it does whites. But that's not to say that Blacks don't have a role in helping to remove whatever stigmas that remain.



In a way they are special. After slavery ended they Black people couldn't just assimilate with the rest of society thereafter, because they don't look like the rest of society. Historically, when slaves of same race in other societies ceased to be slaves, over time they eventually intermarried, and essentially assimilated. When white people have white slaves, or dark-skinned people have dark-skinned slaves, after a few generations there's not the physical difference that keep the stigmas alive. They *can* assimilate into the larger society after just a few generations. That didn't happen with Black slaves in the US, because they carried the stigma of being thought of as less than human by most white people even after many generations. As many generations pass that stigma has became less prominent to people, but it took a civil rights movement to get us even headed in that direction. Even now, there are still remnants. We're not there yet.


Just a couple of points here. Yes, other Black people sold them into slavery. That's not really relevant for the extent to which there are still remnants of the stigma of being Black. But I completely agree with the fact that the welfare state has exacerbated the "victimhood" mentality, and that the "victimhood" mentality itself is a large factor in perpetuating the adversity for Black people. If Black people could take all the reasons for the negative stereotypes to linger, the point where society progresses beyond caring about skin color would be hastened that much more. Human nature is what it is, and so attitudes need help changing.



I think this is mostly true. Everyone needs to acknowledge what is true and what is untrue. It's true that there are more black people in prison proportionately. And it's not the case that it's only because the "white" institutions just arrest black criminals at a higher rate than white criminals. I think because of things like stop-and-frisk, that is at least a little true. But not in sufficient scale to explain the difference. And when we look at police shooting black people at higher rates, if we look at the rate of deaths per encounter with police, black people are actually killed by police slightly less than whites. Last statistic I looked at, 4 white people are killed per 100K encounters, compared to 3 black people. So the imbalance is caused because Black people encounter police more. Institutionally racist policies, which I would grant stop-and-frisk is a rare example, accounts for some of the greater number of encounters, but not even close to all.


The ideal condition for society is for people not to care about what color a person's skin is. I know the wokies don't like that. They think not caring about skin color is actually racist, which is absurd and mock-worthy. And there's a lot of truth to the "indoctrination". Too many Black AND White people are convinced that all the far left intellectuals, and the race-opportunists like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etcetera, are correct. It's not helping.


Freeing the shackles though, ask I said, takes greater moxie. Not everyone has it. If that were the only answer, conservative intellectuals could probably convince some people who have it to find it and use it. I think ending the welfare state would help, not just in Black communities, but also the methland trailer parks. Encouraging personal responsibility would help, not just in Black communities, but also in the methland trailer parks. I bring that up to emphasize the point that all groups have people who just don't have the character, the will, intelligence, right stuff, the moxie, to pull themselves up or there wouldn't be methland trailer parks. There wouldn't be inner city slums.

We'll always have the poor. And poor areas always have more crime than affluent areas. I think where we need to be is a place where we care 0% about skin color, and race accounts for 0% of the reason black people are in those places.

TL;DR.

 

[jamil]

Anyway, I've been waiting to hear the OP's thoughts on the topic.

 

[JEBland]

Anyway, I've been waiting to hear the OP's thoughts on the topic.

I've been watching the thread, but it's late now, and I am about to turn into a pumpkin. Also, I have a Wednesday morning meeting, so I'll probably weigh in on Wednesday evening in order to be able to properly respond to the detailed points of you all and the article's author.

 

[wtburnette]

I did notice the author obviously didn't agree with Thomas Sowell. I have to say I agree with his viewpoint on most any topic, whether it be the state of the black people, the welfare state, diversity and many other topics.

 

[JEBland]

The main things I'd like to address are these:

1. I don't think we've engaged with the premise of the article enough,
2. Some response to the thread so far,
3. What are the holes I see in conservative thoughts on this, and
4. I have some personal thoughts on how to structure the argument (I'm a white conservative guy, but I assure you, my thoughts are limited, so 2 out of 3 ain't bad).

1. Missing discussion related to the article

I think it's important that we acknowledge the opening paragraphs that lay the underlying questions that the author feels both individualists and structuralists seem to gloss over:

Can we choose to be optimistic or pessimistic about our future prospects? Can we choose our appetite for risk or our attitude toward conformity? Can we choose to bolster our self-esteem if we know that low self-esteem is causing us grief?

In my reading the author seems to suggest that neglecting to treat the competition of these factors is detrimental to social progress and policy. The remainder of the article seems to suggest that we probe the competition of these factors by both acknowledging the very problematic evidence suggested by Sowell, Steele, et al. and the lack of rigor in other aspects of the conservative argument that haven't been strengthened because they haven't been refuted on grounds of merit. I think there are things questioned in the article that have been at least partially answered in studies, but because of the refutation to engage with black conservatives on the merits of their ideas, they haven't been presented publicly in context. That said, I think the purpose of the article is to ask the questions that appear to be holes in the argument, and not to answer them. A worthy goal, but not the end (further, the author doesn't presume that his is the final critique, so maybe having some softball questions is a way to start the conversation).

This wasn't totally lost above, but a second interesting thing is the author's seeming disappointment in the lack of analysis regarding say the black rednecks aspect of Sowell's work (limiting here for space, but I think is a very important part in showing the limitation of Sowell's statements):

Sowell sees a causal arrow running straight from the lawless borderlands of the Scottish Highlands, northern England, and Ulster County, Ireland, to the antebellum South, where immigrants from these parts of the world arrived in the early years of our nation’s history, and on to the self-destructive behavior of many of the black residents of our urban ghettos.
[...]
What in the world happened to the fiercely data-driven, methodologically rigorous social scientist? I took a deep breath and flipped back to the beginning of the chapter. My second impression (also after a little editorial oversight): Are we really supposed to believe that a black teenager from south-east DC who pulls a gun out at a gas station because he is enraged by what he perceives to be a look of disrespect from the driver of a nearby parked car is a direct cultural descendant of violent, impulsive, honor-obsessed, kilt-wearing Scottish Highlanders?
[...]
Why would a scholar interested in understanding the persistence of racial inequality in contemporary America insist for his mother-of-all explanatory variables on a clan-based honor culture that emerged on another continent in the late Middle Ages? This is not a trivial question. Why would a methodologically sophisticated social scientist invest so heavily in such a speculative (and unfalsifiable) theory of interracial cultural transmission? Why would an otherwise data-driven social scientist promote such an implausible theory when common sense would suggest that the “ghetto” culture that emerged in the second half of the 20th century was at least partly a byproduct of a long history of state-sanctioned discrimination in education, housing, and employment?

I think there are some studies to suggest this connection, but if the argument isn't being made to say connect spending habits of the black sub populace with the southern whites (but not the northern) to more closely like the cultures, then it's difficult to see any tractability of these claims - Coleman Hughes has addressed this some, but he's somewhat new to the scene and doesn't yet have the wide reach of as Thomas Sowell. I don't think Hanna is suggesting that there aren't any answers, but rather that the answers and the connections have not been challenged enough for them to made more rigorous in public consciousness. If we view subcultures as weakly-interacting pockets within the national structure (historically somewhat reasonable for various reasons, but being less true each day), then we should expect some sort of connections between cultures and things being gained/lost along the way even with weak statistical interactions. That picture ignores trends taken from movies (like cowboy hats) and other artifically generated features of American viewpoints (like adding gun-mufflers to the NFA). Hanna is asking if these trends were cemented before any large-scale cross-cultural integration took place or if they saw a resurgence or if there's an argument that more firmly links them, then give it.


2. Some responses to the thread so far

There are a bunch of issues, but they can't be addressed until the black people stop loving the racism/slavery cards. Yes, like so many other peoples in the world, your ancestors were slaves. Deal with it.

While this line of thought is very tempting, the problem with this type of statement is that it lacks tact and isn't going to be received by the very people we hope would learn the lesson. It also refutes any (partially) legitimate claim that their starting point is affected in part due to past racism (this is in fact partially true statistically across the decedents of black slaves). How to best undue that damage is different from denying the starting point. (Personal opinion And tact allows us to narrow the pathway for identity politics (which ironically are every bit as prevalent on INGO as the college gender studies classroom). There's no great reason why race should matter so much for suburban kids living in a suburban cul de sac, but the identity aspect of this is still there. Add that to the "I want to be a good person" white fellow-travelers, and we have this weird cultural thing that many people have noted, including in this thread, where the system is being blamed when there is a measured difference in effort in schoolwork, interacting with police, etc. I'll focus on these two given that they are the primary focus of discussion here and elsewhere, and also something where the governmental institutions actually have a bit of data.

Part of the problem is that they see "racial injustice" where it doesn't exist. They talk about how more of the people in prisons are black, when the reason is that more black people committed crimes. They talk about how there are unarmed blacks killed by police, completely ignoring that more white unarmed criminals are killed by police.

I agree that this is a real problem, and people aren't receptive of the fact that socioeconomic class is a far better proxy for the associated claims. We really need some sort of careful outreach to help people distinguish between the various factors, but I'm not very hopeful about this.

So Steele's "margin of choice" argument, falls short of acknowledging that point. If white people face the same adversities, we'd see similar results. Only the people with sufficient "moxie" to overcome their obstacles, make it through them. Steele's argument falls short because it is purely an individualistic argument. And as an avowed individualist, I still have to acknowledge that group dynamics exist, and allow the extent to which they do exist, to inform my opinion about a matter where it's relevant.

This. This really hits the core of the issue as I see it. The question isn't whether there are structural issues (say at the level of society as opposed to legal) or if there are individual barriers that come from breaking free from culture (learned lessons from the people who bring us up). Rather, the relative importance of these two factors. When we try to be firmly rooted in reality, things get complicated, murky, and difficult to really separate - Even if the previous generation gained some wisdom and tries to pass that along, how do we tell a kid not to smoke while lighting up the 3rd cigarette in 20 minutes? How do we tell children earnestly "go to college and make something of yourself" then insult those "educated idiots" without being careful as to why these educated people are in fact "idiots"?

[Edit to add: The importance of multiple factors should be emphasized. The other day I saw a dandelion seed pass by my second story bedroom window. We, of course, know it will eventually land, but where and if it'll take depends on the wind. Sometimes these contributing factors interact in complicated ways, but we still need to account for all of them as we more towards explaining the data better and better.]

As careful reading of the data, IMO, suggests that the individualists have the high ground, at least as far as race is concerned with those two main institutions (education, crim. justice systems).
The data I've seen (and of course I don't have peer-reviewed studies on hand) suggests that at least from education data, that the vast majority of the disparity between ethnic groups is accounted for by economic class and study hours. What I don't understand is academics pointing to ~5% of the gap and going "see, this 5% is from racism" as opposed to "see, the bulk of the data is explained by two factors, one of which is a society-level problem (fixing public schools) and encouraging our next generation to be properly engaged with that structure (go read a book, kid). There is another 5% that is not accounted for, and racism is some subset of that." It's bad science to say "we have two factors that explain the vast majority of the gap, but we're going to obsess over a third factor that makes up some part of the remaining perturbation on the data." The conservatives (individualists) have the high ground, especially if we agree that investing in public education is/should be a good investment (assuming that K-12 teachers, you know, teach). If there are issues with those educational structures (there are), then let's tackle those issues as opposed to tearing the structures down entirely. Note, there is a horse-water problem in the poor kid-public library argument, which is a cultural problem, but we have to convince people who don't value education that education is vital to improving one's station in life (I don't just mean college, but trade training, etc). Additionally, what if we agree to be okay with the horse that decides not to drink the water, but we should still provide the water (that is, the existence of under-utilized resources doesn't mean we should not offer those resources).
If we presume as I do, for the moment, that an analogous statement holds for the criminal justice system ( the bulk of the data discrepancy is explained from economic class + interaction with structure), then again, we have a prime place for improvement both systemically/structurally (public defenders are given far too large of a workload to properly serve clients who are presumed innocent) and individually (don't be a dick to the cops, don't act out for temporary clout, and so on).

I think where we need to be is a place where we care 0% about skin color, and race accounts for 0% of the reason black people are in those places.

I don't think any society can ever full eliminate racism, but perhaps we can achieve the point where racism is a roughly-uniform noise for all racial groups, which would roughly bring us to your second part of this. The main problem with conservatives is that we seem unable to convince people of the fact that we're already very close to this in education, and that black people disproportionately poor doesn't mean we shouldn't help all poor people (red lining disproportionately affected black Americans, but we shouldn't care about the decedents of the poor whites who were also left out from it, how does that make sense).

I did notice the author obviously didn't agree with Thomas Sowell. I have to say I agree with his viewpoint on most any topic, whether it be the state of the black people, the welfare state, diversity and many other topics.

This is a different temptation. When we like people from previous interactions, we tend to be a little less critical of their arguments. I like Sowell's work, but can see where asking "how does this follow from that" as being a valid question not an outright accusation that he's incorrect, but rather that the answer seems tenuous to the author.

3. Limitations on conservative arguments as I see them.

One main problem with the conservative argument as I see it is denying the sharp difference in access to resources due to economic level. There's nothing wrong with using your money to ensure quality education for your kids or hiring a good lawyer, but poor people have access limitations in addition to the cultural aspects that limit their utilization of those resources. It's not one or the other; it's both, but how much of each, and how do we form policies that balance these and also ensure that people have some autonomy and positive feedback to continue improvement? That is, the conservative school of thought often misses opportunities on improving the structure by denying that we can improve the structure at all, as opposed to making a careful argument as to the contributions of the the various factors. Aaron Hanna seems to suggest that the argument of "this is the only factor to care about" is plaguing and weakening both sides. Even Obama attempted to suggest that black America take a more active role in improving their life and environment, giving him the ire of the far left. (That is aside from his race-baiting comments about Trayvon Martin or his recent very alarming comments about how social media needs to censor "potentially dangerous" speech. Yikes.) The denialism trend within the conservative sphere is to our detriment not just as conservatives but to our larger society as well (I'm not saying that liberals don't have their own set of denialisms, but I don't consider myself ideologically in-line with most of them, so it bothers me less fundamentally).

The second thing, which is actually really basic, is just pointing out all of the logical inconsistencies required for the woke solutions:
Perhaps the biggest issue I see is the constant ping-pong between groups and individuals used solely to bolster their argument but never limit it...
- We are supposed to capitalize the b in black but not the w in white because black people are a tighter-knit culture than white people, but also black people aren't a monolith (and no article I've ever read on "don't treat black people as a monolith" didn't also assume white people are a monolith). We are to capitalize b in black but not w in white because there's a Black culture (somehow this implies you should only listen to the right kind of black person, who is the arbiter of this is left vague, but they'll let you know, but it's also not their job to teach you), but there's no white culture and all the whites have gotten together to rig the system against black even though we don't share a culture.
- Affirmative action in higher ed doesn't work, but we should keep it because there are some black individuals who benefit even if the black subpopulace suffers as a whole. In that link, Randall Kennedy basically makes the argument "Think of the principle! Let's help the black community out of poverty, oh, but we don't actually care if it hurts the population as a whole because there are individuals who benefited."
- Diversity on campus and in the workplace is good, but we also can't ask black people about their experiences.
- We have to abandon math and logic because math and logic are racist, but we will use statistics to determine if there are disparities between groups. We will also only keep the disparities that make it look as though whites are somehow on top.

The wokesters are riddled with contradictions, but somehow simple, calm, explanations of their inconsistencies doesn't seem to be offered in the mainstay. The usual "best" argument is a form of "these people are idiots" followed by evidence. Tone matters. We can do better at bringing people into the fold (even fudds). It's commonplace to see "disparity = racism" even among education people who should know better. I don't particularly fair well in live verbal debates, but would like some sort of letter system akin to say federalists vs. anti-federalists to discuss these issues. I don't understand how people read Kendi and think "this makes sense;" Coleman Hughes discusses this very calmly. I don't think we need to sacrifice constitutionality, while Kendi literally wants a federal agency to be able to intervene at all scales of the government. This agency, with no political appointees (i.e. no accountability), would be a ****ing nightmare for anyone concerned with individual liberty. I try not to give up hope, but don't have high hopes for reaching those people.

4. Some thoughts on framing the discussion

We need to make efforts to keep things in good faith and emphasize that the discussion is in good faith. Sometimes people will take advantage of that when acting in their self-interests. If we are claiming to be the calm rationalists, then this patience is needed, especially in fighting the culture war (let there be no doubt that we are in a culture war).

I think Hanna did a great job of starting the conversation in that article - I believe he's acting in good faith by critiquing the arguments rather than the individuals. He acknowledges the strengths and benefits of the decades long figures in the black conservative public figures movement (as opposed to one-ofs, etc), but also posing some basic questions that he feels are not receiving attention. That is, Hanna seems to ask us to "think about the principle." What is the goal that we want, what does the available data suggest for best policies to achieve those goals.

Conservatives should acknowledge that racism is real (and not just anti-white racism which is considered some sort of just deserts mostly by people born into privilege exacted on white people just trying to improve their lives), but doesn't account for the vast majority of the data. This is an important point that is often lost in the "it's not real in 2022" type of argument. Use a data-driven approach with explaining how the boogeyman theory of racism only accounts for a few percent of the data in this millenium. How social policies should be in place, but they should be race-neutral so we aren't harming asians for what whites did to blacks, nor are we harming poor whites who had nothing to do with the policies that scarred both poor black and white communities given that once we control for socioeconomic factors, the discrepancy in the data nearly all but goes away.

Conservatives are often lost in a ____- sucks mudhole without discussing the things that got us stuck in the mud. ACA? Hate it. Ryan care/ Trump care that failed? Would've been worse from the numbers I saw and was scrapped because of that (at least, as I understand it). Covering pre-existing conditions? That was a good thing.

We need to revisit the methods for particular issues and propose solutions on tackling those problems. I think urban and rural solutions will be different, but I'm willing to entertain what those solutions should be.


It's late and pumpkin time again. I'm sure I could do better if I did some drafts, but maybe this will be my initial contribution in the individualists' marketplace of ideas. I hope we can continue this is good faith. Have a good night all.

 

[wtburnette]

I can't address all of that, as I don't have the energy and my train of thought wouldn't last long enough...

I do have a couple of comments though. First, in talking about the Left and their um, inconsistencies let's say, I always keep in mind that the Left is trying to destroy this country. I could sugarcoat it by using their language of "drastically transforming" blah, blah, blah, but that's not the truth. They want to destroy the American experiment because they hate it and they want to impose Socialism/Communism in it's place because then they can be permanently on top. When we look at topics like this and wonder why it's so hard to reconcile viewpoints and work out social issues, this is a huge part of it. Add in Globalists on the Right and it's amazing to me our country has lasted this long. We have multiple groups intent on destroying what makes our country unique and part of that is playing groups off on one another, which gives us all the racism, identity politics, sexism, etc. Sure, those things do exist, but not to the extent that they are pushed.

Also, in regards to racism, the biggest examples of racism I've seen in my life are towards whites. I believe this is completely intentional and pushed by the Left as being fine as we're all racists who used to own slaves so we deserve it. This is part of the whole "anti-racism" bull which is, IMO, absolutely on purpose trying to destroy our country, our institutions and our way of life. There is only so much people can take before they start to push back. I think we're starting to see some of this now with the whole push against CRT, yet at the same time, so much of it exists. I have to take training courses in this garbage at work if I want to keep my job. I think this is some of the most evil stuff I've ever seen, making people take training in stuff they absolutely disagree with in order to stay employed.

Anyway, brain is done now. Have a good one...

 

[JEBland]

First, in talking about the Left and their um, inconsistencies let's say, I always keep in mind that the Left is trying to destroy this country.

Just to be clear: Both sides claim this about the other.

We have multiple groups intent on destroying what makes our country unique and part of that is playing groups off on one another, which gives us all the racism, identity politics, sexism, etc. Sure, those things do exist, but not to the extent that they are pushed.

This is the proper argument, right? We want to bring people into the fold, so denying what they claim (which is there), but they are taking the ramifications out of scope. We should be putting those realities into context and the extent to which that's the case. Additionally, their internal inconsistencies of making policies to assist groups that actually harm those groups is the point to make - they aren't willing to scrap the notion of helping the disenfranchised, we need to provide the data and continue to reaffirm how these policies harm the very groups they claim to help.

Also, in regards to racism, the biggest examples of racism I've seen in my life are towards whites. I believe this is completely intentional and pushed by the Left as being fine as we're all racists who used to own slaves so we deserve it.

Can we both acknowledge that we're likely to have a mental book of examples that are more personal to us (just as the anecdotes from non-white people are likely to be personal to them)? I agree that it's socioculturally acceptable to say openly racist things against whites, and the people who say these things are not only okay with this double-standard but are often proud of it. While it's a principled argument, if we're having the debate in the public sphere, we need to emphasize their racism, but not fixate on it as the sole argument.

This is part of the whole "anti-racism" bull which is, IMO, absolutely on purpose trying to destroy our country, our institutions and our way of life.

Agreeds. Anti-racism is racism. I'm against state-sponsored racism, even the "good" kind (the so called anti-racism).

There is only so much people can take before they start to push back. I think we're starting to see some of this now with the whole push against CRT, yet at the same time, so much of it exists. I have to take training courses in this garbage at work if I want to keep my job. I think this is some of the most evil stuff I've ever seen, making people take training in stuff they absolutely disagree with in order to stay employed.

Agreed. And the data suggests such trainings don't work, again, the irony needs to be noted and emphasized.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sorry. Just feeling a little wordy today. It'll probably pass.

Foszoe's back and in true form?

 

[wtburnette]

Just to be clear: Both sides claim this about the other.

Yes, but one side is wrong. Conservatives want to preserve what makes this country great, which is the Constitution and how we were formed. America is the ideals it was founded on. Changing that too drastically will change the country itself. We may still have the same geography, cities and people, but we'll no longer be America, just a weak reflection of what we once were.

This is the proper argument, right? We want to bring people into the fold, so denying what they claim (which is there), but they are taking the ramifications out of scope. We should be putting those realities into context and the extent to which that's the case. Additionally, their internal inconsistencies of making policies to assist groups that actually harm those groups is the point to make - they aren't willing to scrap the notion of helping the disenfranchised, we need to provide the data and continue to reaffirm how these policies harm the very groups they claim to help.

It's important to note IMO that more "racism" exists than actual racism. There will always be some racism. I don't think it'll ever be rooted out in it's entirety, here or anywhere else. It's also important to differentiate between racism and overt sensitivity. People lately are always crying racism when someone disagrees with them, looks at them funny, or makes them do math. Yes, if people are victims of actual out and out racism, they deserve to be helped, but I'm not sure there are really many of them out there. What do you mean by disenfranchised? How many people in this country actually fit that definition? Is it just limited to blacks or POC?

Can we both acknowledge that we're likely to have a mental book of examples that are more personal to us (just as the anecdotes from non-white people are likely to be personal to them)? I agree that it's socioculturally acceptable to say openly racist things against whites, and the people who say these things are not only okay with this double-standard but are often proud of it. While it's a principled argument, if we're having the debate in the public sphere, we need to emphasize their racism, but not fixate on it as the sole argument.

I guess. I can point out a dozen outright racist things against whites right now without even trying. I'm not sure when the last time I heard an actual racist comment against a POC, or saw anything racially biased that couldn't be explained by something else. In my life I've seen many instances where someone has cried racism where no racism existed and this seems to be getting worse. It isn't helped by our dishonest and corrupt media who want to push racism as hard as they can, or our corporate leaders who want to indoctrinate all of us white people into believing we're racist trash and only POC are good and worth a damn.

 

[JEBland]

Yes, but one side is wrong. Conservatives want to preserve what makes this country great, which is the Constitution and how we were formed. America is the ideals it was founded on. Changing that too drastically will change the country itself. We may still have the same geography, cities and people, but we'll no longer be America, just a weak reflection of what we once were.

For clarity, I agree with you. But saying "one side is wrong" isn't enough. These are claims (that I agree with) but we need to substantiate them if we hope to convince people.

It's important to note IMO that more "racism" exists than actual racism. There will always be some racism. I don't think it'll ever be rooted out in it's entirety, here or anywhere else. It's also important to differentiate between racism and overt sensitivity. People lately are always crying racism when someone disagrees with them, looks at them funny, or makes them do math. Yes, if people are victims of actual out and out racism, they deserve to be helped, but I'm not sure there are really many of them out there. What do you mean by disenfranchised? How many people in this country actually fit that definition? Is it just limited to blacks or POC?

I agree that the notion of say microaggressions is drastically out of context and out of proportion. We've got a generation (generations?) of people who believe "if it hurts my feelings, the other person better apologize." There's a second fight to encourage a "thick skin" and recognize that intents do matter and outcomes are not everything is a viewpoint being rejected by those with the victim mentality (indeed, this is perhaps the underlying issue with the victim mentality as I see it).

By disenfranchised I mean the people born into situations and circumstances that put them at a disadvantage at climbing the socioeconomic ladder. As I stated above, economic class is a far better predictor than race, and so if we wish to close the "opportunity gap" we would be far better served by color-blind methods to achieve this goal - and we should shoot for that goal. Intelligence is roughly evenly distributed (or rather, rare genius is in fact rare but relatively uniformly distributed). We don't need to miss out on the next Glenn Loury or Leonard Susskind (whose father was a plumber but pushed Susskind to "be Einstein" when Susskind told his father that he wanted to study engineering). We can't legislate family culture (the horse-water / poor kid-public library problem), but we can fix the opportunity gap. This is going to be wordy: By focusing on adding entry-ramps to the social-mobility highway and allow people to change their circumstances, we not only give more opportunity for bettering our society, but also pull the rug out from under the "it's only structure" ******** from the antiracist racists.

As a personal example, I was a lackluster high school student but with a good SAT score relative to the non-elite kids at my school (say Lafayette public high school), got into the local state college (say, Ball State), then came to Purdue for my PhD, all of which are a social step-up from the previous place. We are currently missing people who could be very productive members of society by not facilitating their stepwise movement (and affirmative action in college admissions harms those disadvantaged people, at least at the elite college level). While I'm not going to be the next Susskind, I will have a decent job on the other end of this and can provide my children with opportunities I never had or were never presented to me, while contributing tax dollars and being a productive citizen.

I contend that opportunity to move up is a good thing to offer and in our best interests not just because we want to convince the other side but because it benefits the country to provide the structure to allow those who wish to push themselves to push themselves to their limits.

I guess. I can point out a dozen outright racist things against whites right now without even trying. I'm not sure when the last time I heard an actual racist comment against a POC, or saw anything racially biased that couldn't be explained by something else. In my life I've seen many instances where someone has cried racism where no racism existed and this seems to be getting worse. It isn't helped by our dishonest and corrupt media who want to push racism as hard as they can, or our corporate leaders who want to indoctrinate all of us white people into believing we're racist trash and only POC are good and worth a damn.

In short, agreed.

 

[wtburnette]

I agree with most everything you say. How, in your opinion, do we fix the opportunity gap? I understand that some people are born into poor circumstances, but how do we as a society fix that?

I was born into a lower middle income family with a Dad who was a police officer for IPD and Mom was a stay at home Mom until she took a factory job to help make ends meet when I was in High School. Went to and graduated Franklin Central with a C average, displaying no real aptitudes. Went into the Army thinking I'd make it a career, but also to get money for college in case that didn't work out. It didn't. Wasn't the life for me so I came home and ended up going to IvyTech for an associate's degree in IT. Started working tech support / helpdesk and worked in that field for about 16 years, making reasonable money. Switched to Information Security and went to WGU to turn my associate's degree into a bachelor's degree. Make pretty good money now, though wasn't wise enough to do more for retirement. I did everything for myself, though I admit I had a family infrastructure that helped. Most everything I did was self driven though.

I acknowledge there are people who are stuck, I'm just not sure how to help those individuals. I also believe there are way more who don't want to work and don't want to improve themselves due to subculture thinking.

 

[JEBland]

I agree with most everything you say. How, in your opinion, do we fix the opportunity gap? I understand that some people are born into poor circumstances, but how do we as a society fix that?

Ironically, standardized tests (currently hated by the social justice crowd) provide some framework for talent recognition (relative SATs for a given socioeconomic background is a mild correlator) - if I recall, Roland Fryer found that 8th grade test scores are relevant factors for success within the black community. Additionally, allowing teachers to suggest students for gifted programs could help, but that's problematic given the "activist" role that some K-12 teachers pride themselves in. To ensure that there are advanced/honors tracts in public high schools (as opposed to CA rolling back advanced courses in order to reduce education disparity, which is ****ing absurd). Community colleges to provide affordable gap-coverage from high school to provide a bridge program with more serious and longer-term educational opportunities, also supporting trades via grant programs (I don't know how we make people get a job when they don't wish to work, but we do want to be able to say "there are opportunities, get your ass up and go take advantage of them").

I was born into a lower middle income family with a Dad who was a police officer for IPD and Mom was a stay at home Mom until she took a factory job to help make ends meet when I was in High School. Went to and graduated Franklin Central with a C average, displaying no real aptitudes. Went into the Army thinking I'd make it a career, but also to get money for college in case that didn't work out. It didn't. Wasn't the life for me so I came home and ended up going to IvyTech for an associate's degree in IT. Started working tech support / helpdesk and worked in that field for about 16 years, making reasonable money. Switched to Information Security and went to WGU to turn my associate's degree into a bachelor's degree. Make pretty good money now, though wasn't wise enough to do more for retirement. I did everything for myself, though I admit I had a family infrastructure that helped. Most everything I did was self driven though.

That's a good and important success story. I lived at home during my time at Stockton College/University in NJ, so I also had the familial benefit, but my paper credentials were not very impressive prior to entering college. I'd also note that I paid/took debt myself for my college days, and noticed a strong difference between students responsible for their own way (either by taking debt or by returning to college) versus the "college as an experience" kids whose parents footed the bill. We need to have people feel that they have skin in the game in order for them to not waste those resources - I don't have perfect methods for that feedback system, but I'd love if it was a part of the larger conversation.

I acknowledge there are people who are stuck, I'm just not sure how to help those individuals. I also believe there are way more who don't want to work and don't want to improve themselves due to subculture thinking.

Agreed, and I only concern myself who are in the first camp. I think in order to develop the unsticking structure, we need conversations and calculations to actually allocate resources - I'm also in favor of auditing top-to-bottom to determine where we have governmental waste to reallocate rather than just increasing taxes on those other people.