Race

Student Thinks University of Michigan's Race Requirement Exists 'To Get White People To Be a Little Less Racist'

And yet we wonder why conservatives have soured on higher education.

|

UM
Scott Kashkin

Some students would like the University of Michigan to revise its race and ethnicity requirement (R&E), which obligates students in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) to complete a course that includes these themes.

That's because the requirement has strayed from its true purpose, according to Allie Brown, a junior in the School of Public Policy.

"The purpose of the Race and Ethnicity requirement is to get white people to be a little less racist, for people to be a little bit more knowledgeable about the world they live in," Brown told The Michigan Daily. "That's really what it came about after the activism. Not just, 'Oh, learn about race and ethnicity in general.' That's not really the purpose behind it. A lot of the courses that are counted as R&E today don't require cultural competency, that's the problem. It's just like, 'Oh, we mention race and ethnicity, thus we should be counted as Race and Ethnicity.'"

Brown isn't just a random student; The Daily notes that she recently helped Angela Dillard, an associate dean of LSA, complete a study of the requirement, and is therefore positioned to advise its possible revision or expansion. And the main point of R&E, in Brown's view, is to educate one specific identity group.

I graduated from Michigan's LSA. The college only has a few requirements: a first-year writing course, an upper level writing course, a quantitative reasoning course (the bane of my existence), foreign language competency, and race and ethnicity. The best argument for the race and ethnicity requirement is this: Students should at some point study the history, traditions, or sociology of some identity group with which they aren't particularly familiar, as part of a broad-based liberal arts education. But it sounds like Brown wants race and ethnicity to be less like an educational requirement and more like an activism recruitment experience.

This reminds me of American University's effort to reimagine dorm life as an opportunity to teach "oppression studies" to a captive audience—with recruitment into an ideological movement being the true goal of the students advising such changes.

And yet we wonder why political conservatives have suddenly soured on higher education.

NEXT: The Feds Are Going After Trump's Lawyer. It Looks Pretty Bad: Reason Roundup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Students should at some point study the history, traditions, or sociology of some identity group with which they aren’t particularly familiar, as part of a broad-based liberal arts education.”

    So then they could be studying the Western cannon or Greco-Roman civilization since those courses no longer exist in our “exalted institutes of high education”.

    1. Also, I’m going to say that the fact that Robby wrote an article pushing against such nonsense shows that he has bigger balls than he gets credit for from commentators, “to be sure”.

    2. ROTC kids still study the cannon.

      1. “Was it high?
        Was it low?
        Where the hell did that one go?”*

        * sung to “The Caissons Go Rolling Along”

        1. Clap
          Clap Clap
          Clap
          A round of applause.

          1. Stupid comment system strips out deliberately added white space.

            1. Try &nbsp next time.

              1. Or & nbsp I suppose.

            2. White space is problematic.

              1. White space is racist!!!!

    3. I tripped on that line too.

      Nothing says “free minds” like promoting “identity groups” with the assumption that they all think alike.

      1. Yeah, should have left out “identity”. It’s a fine thing to learn something about an ethnic group you don’t know much about. But SJW/identity politics language creeping into ordinary language is not good.

    4. So then they could be studying the Western cannon or Greco-Roman civilization since those courses no longer exist in our “exalted institutes of high education”.

      Have classics departments been abolished?

      1. Not that I’m aware of. But, classics courses are no longer required courses of study, unlike the class that Robby is discussing

        1. Yeah, that’s definitely true.

          I’m glad I did my little classics concentration in college. But it was a pretty backwater department at that point (like 17 years ago). Can’t read Greek for shit now, but learning the language and history was still pretty valuable.

          1. Learning a few foreign languages actually made my English better.

            When you’re a native speaker, sometimes you get lazy at advanced aspects of your own language. Learning the structure of other languages to speak it correctly can allow you to increase your native language skill too.

            1. Dittos! (I learned the formal vocabulary of English grammar by studying Spanish from an age-inappropriate textbook, in middle school.)

    5. Good point. The purpose of education is to impart information to children who after all weren’t born knowing even *how* to read, but…I’ve talked to college sophomores who didn’t know that Martin Luther King was named after Martin Luther. (Bashing the younger generation? Well, those students were sophomores in 1987.) U.S. schools seem to have received the message, loud and clear, that not everyone in North America thinks it’s “Mother” England…and lost sight of the reality that, as far as our literary and philosophical tradition goes, it still *is*.

  2. Anybody who thinks white people invented racism and slavery needs to open up a goddamn history book, or take a look at the rest of the world, including most of Africa today. Anybody who thinks only white people can be racist is a racist bigot themselves.

    The historical revisionism that drives the “white guilt” these progressives brainwash people into believing is every bit as deluded and dangerous as Southern whites denying the Civil War had anything to do with slavery. I know plenty of people who think white people launched military invasions of Africa to steal black people.

    Try telling them the Portuguese found an existing massive slave trade where millions of black people were sold and traded within Africa and to the Arab world for centuries, and they just say that it is a lie invented by white people. It is their go to. Don’t like an inconvenient part of history? It’s just a lie by white people.

    1. Or, like the slave trade in the Ottoman empire ending in the 1830’s. This less because of a moral renaissance wirhin the Empire, but because the Russians had recently conquered their longtime source of Slavic slaves.

      1. Slavic slaves

        Incidentally the trope-namers for slave now are now considered privileged by the intelligentsia.

    2. Or like Libya – where the slave trade was reinvigorated due to the military adventures of Obama and Hillary.

    3. Try telling them the Portuguese found an existing massive slave trade where millions of black people were sold and traded within Africa and to the Arab world for centuries, and they just say that it is a lie invented by white people. It is their go to. Don’t like an inconvenient part of history? It’s just a lie by white people.

      Hell, tell people in Africa TODAY, where the slave trade still very much exists. Mauritania has upwards of 17% of the population enslaved today.

      I have told my sons that the Europeans didn’t go to Africa and kidnap anybody. Those slaves were sold by other tribes and the vast majority went to Brazil, not the colonies.

      1. Europeans didn’t introduce slavery to anywhere it didn’t already exist. Up to 1/3 of the entire Native American population in the Pacific Northwest were slaves before European contact. Chief Seattle had over 100 slaves at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Native Hawaiians (who only arrived in Hawaii 600 years before the Europeans) had a strict caste system with slaves at the bottom. Slavery was a normal way of life in every culture and civilization for millennia.

        This doesn’t excuse racism or absolve white people of their sins, but I do think we need to more fully appreciate the philosophy and principles that got us to where we are today, thinking that slavery is inherently bad. Most of the foundation for this was indeed European white people.

        People enslaved are always abolitionists. The oppressed always oppose oppression. What is an historical anomaly is when an oppressor and more powerful group of people voluntarily end slavery and oppression of a weaker group, which is what the West has done. People should keep that in mind.

        1. It was hardly voluntary in this country.

            1. The actual slavers didn’t really want to give up their slaves, which is what was implied.

              1. The one’s in the Union did just that you fucking retard.

              2. You mean Democrats, right? Democrats were slavers.

                The Republican Party was started as an abolitionist party.

                1. Thank you constitution for bringing your usual preschool level discourse to this conversation. It wasn’t quite simpleminded enough.

                  1. Tony, I know facts cause your mental illness to really set you off.

                    Democrats were slavers in the slave states.

                    Lincoln and Congress at the time freed the slaves in the USA via war and a constitutional amendment. Lincoln was a Republican.

              3. Since when do you limit you’re collectivist revanchism to just the slavers, rather than all white people?

              4. Tony, you are *very* right about it.

                Indeed, we had a party that was committed to preserving the institution of slavery in America. They started a civil war over it. When they lost the war, they started a terrorist organization to persecute former slaves and the people trying to preserve their rights. They passed laws preventing former slaves from interacting with white people. They bribed the descendants of former slaves in a successful effort to buy their vote.

                And get this: they have managed to convince America that the party founded to end this abomination are the real racists!

                To this day, this party is alive and well, trying to enslave the American people….and it narrowly lost the last Presidential election….

                1. I know I’m right, but that insight of yours is unfortunately undermined by this perversely infantile surface-level “analysis” that tries to blame a modern Democratic party for sins committed by a completely different party from a century and a half ago that shares only its name. Does this bullshit really convince you people? Why don’t you focus on how far the Republican party has fallen from Lincoln to Trump? If party name is so important, why not fixate on that?

                  1. Tony, over the last 150 years, the platforms between the two parties have not switched. Why should I believe that the Democrat party hasn’t let go of its fascination for slavery? Particularly since the only reason why they can’t continue to express admiration for dictators (except for Stalin and Castro) is because of political expediency?

                    (Excepting, of course, dictators like Pinochet, whose only interest was to take power, as opposed to remaking humanity into Utopian robots, so was open to allowing free-market ideals flourish during his regime.)

          1. Hundreds of thousands of white men died to free the slaves. It was one of the greatest sacrifices in history.

            1. What’s the punchline? Does it involve the word “grateful”?

              1. “Hundreds of thousands of men died to free people”

                Laugh now.

              2. Jesus Christ, Tony. No. It is just remarkable as a historical fact that western cultures abolished slavery both voluntarily and while they were still getting great benefits from the practice. Not everything is about how people should feel now.

                1. Way to wreck the lefty mission goal.

                2. If we ignore certain uncomfortable realities that muddle that interpretation of history (slavery was in fact becoming more economically nonviable), what you’re saying is that progressive social movements can achieve great results. Maybe next time we could do it without the mass bloodshed. But that’s not up to us progressives, is it?

                  1. progressive social movements almost always bring about bloodshed.

                    1. Because there are always slack-jawed meatheads who insist on doing a backlash? Yeah, I know.

                    2. Tony prefers to send Nazis in the night to gather up undesirables that failed to show up at the train station for deportation to the death camps.

                    3. And here is an actual reason why ‘Progressives’ named themselves, well, Progressives. It’s because they must, by necessity, hide their illiberal and regressive ways.

                      ‘Progressivism’ is a cancer on enlightenment and truth. It is Orwell’s Newspeak.

                  2. Actually, slavery was quite economically viable. Read Robert Fogel on the subject.

                    And ‘progressive’ has nothing to do with it. There’s right and there’s wrong. Stalin’s purges were progressive in their time.

                    Grow up Tony. History isn’t on a trip to some place. We’re not progressing toward some grand location. Mores change, and they’ll keep changing till the species dies out. Teleological progress is an illusion.

                  3. “If we ignore certain uncomfortable realities…”

                    Tony, why don’t you start with going over the historical record of the Democrat Party, and how it did everything in its power to keep blacks in slavery, and keep blacks in subjugation once slavery was abolished? And that it was Republicans who opposed them, every step of the way?

                    1. I don’t know what the “Democrat party” is. You seem fixated on the importance of terms, so can you please use nouns and adjectives correctly? Thanks.

                    2. Now you’re just being obtuse.

          2. It was hardly voluntary in this country.

            What force outside the USA “made” us end it?

            And why haven’t those forces made Africa end it yet?

          3. All but four of the remaining Union states had abolished slavery by legislative act, or were formed as free states, before the start of the Civil War.

    4. And most of the slaves in Europe were Europeans. Quite a few slaves in the Americas were Europeans!

      Early American slavemasters found Black slaves easier to control than the White or Red kinds because they were more conspicuous, easier to track down. It was not because either Europeans or indigenous Americans lacked cultural customs of selling themselves and one another as slaves.

      Ironically, if students still read about the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, they’d know that all of those cultures had regulations for slavery too…though those regulations were more humane than the ones the U.S. adopted in the early nineteenth century. When people sold themselves to creditors to pay debts, they negotiated better deals.

    1. Tell that to Tom BRADY.

  3. It sounds like the intent is reeducation rather than learning how to research and understand a new subject. They seem to object to the idea that a white student might be able to avoid a class steeped in social justice ideology.

    1. And why white students don’t file complaints over the blatant racism is lost on me. I don’t much like playing the race card…but seriously, fuck them. Not playing it has led to the whole “whiteness is racism” shit.

      If we are going to “bigots” no matter what we do…why play nice?

      1. Because it’s more likely to bite white students in the ass, and it’s just four years for a sheet of paper. That’s all. Better to keep your head down and put up with the leftist bullshit until you’re done.

        1. Maybe I’m a weirdo, but I wanted to learn stuff in school. The degree was important, but not the main thing.

          1. You may have wanted, but you did not.

            1. Huh? Is this Asshole Troll again?

  4. No, I don’t really wonder.

  5. “”a quantitative reasoning course (the bane of my existence)””

    (Previous banes of Robby’s existence make disappointed faces)

  6. “” Students should at some point study the history, traditions, or sociology of some identity group with which they aren’t particularly familiar””

    pretty sure Ancient Greeks and Latins filled that requirement nicely for a few hundred years.

    1. oh, boo. (shakes fist @ Just Say’n)

      1. *tips hat*

    2. Not a lot of people identifying as ancient Greeks and Romans these days.

      Classics are great and important. But I also don’t think it’s a bad requirement to have to learn about another contemporary culture that you don’t know much about. If it’s actually about learning and not “re-education” type brainwashing of nasty white people.

      1. I also don’t think it’s a bad requirement to have to learn about another contemporary culture that you don’t know much about.

        unless it accomplishes some specific pedagogical purpose, its just wasting peoples time.

        this is actually what “modern languages” requirements tended to fill. if you leave school able to speak in multiple languages, you can at least claim some skill on a resume.

        “Culture”, in how you’re using it, is just some bullshit that pretends that *certain* groups of people have it, and others don’t.

        Do you mean to suggest greeks and romans had no culture? And surely you can’t argue that those cultures – whether people ‘identify’ as them or not – had massive influence on contemporary western history, governance, institutions, etc?

        You can’t begin to understand US legal jurisprudence, for instance, without some rudimentary latin, and a detailed understanding how how legal structures evolved in the west.

        You’re not getting that w/ Ethiopian Pottery Appreciation 101, and Intro to Queer Cinema. At best, you’ve got a few minutes conversation at a very boring cocktail party.

        1. correction: “”surely you can’t *dispute*….”

      2. Ni yo tampoco…even high schools in some States require one modern language for graduation. All should. And the requirements for passing the modern language course could be higher, more functional, than they are.

  7. Perhaps negro students should be required to study the history of sub-Saharan Africa in the last 50 years in order to be “a little more knowledgeable about the world they live in.”

    Perhaps, they will gain a little insight, such as sub-Saharan regimes inevitably become rife with apartheid, corruption, dystopia, economic disaster, and mass murder.

    Here’s looking at you Robert Mugabe.

    1. Or South Africa, which Reason seems to be uninterested in but has decided to go full apartheid.

      White farmers there need to burn and salt the field and leave. Post haste.

    2. Inevitably? Last I heard, Zambia was pulling its collective socks up, and some other countries seemed to be doing reasonably well at building post-colonial economies…Sources for “inevitably”? Inform me, please.

      Aunque no mas atiendo clases, ni soy negra (legalmente soy blanca), creo que cada persona inteligente siempre sera estudiante…

      Anyone who types “negro,” uncapitalized, has slipped into Spanish and should expect answers in Spanish.

  8. Don’t blame the universities. This crap thinking gets put into their heads way back in high school, if not earlier.

  9. Political conservatives have soured grapes on higher education because they can’t cut it because they don’t believe in having their preconceived ideas challenged.

    Automatic reply: liberals too! Yes, but this article is specifically about a course meant to challenge people’s preconceived views of race.

    In this the most diverse country in the world with a history of race-based slavery and segregation, race is arguably what American politics has always been mostly about. Conservatives at best want to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore it because it makes them uncomfortable (like snowflakes). At worst they want to carry the flag for white supremacy, something that isn’t alien to even mainstream discourse these days.

    1. The dumbest people I’ve ever met in my life were as an undergraduate in school. But, then I started reading your comments Tony and the rest is history

    2. Automatic reply: liberals too! Yes, but this article is specifically about a course meant to challenge people’s preconceived views of race.

      ONE GROUP’S “preconceived views of race”. No other group is expected to engage in any self-examination.

      Funny, huh?

      It’s not whites saying that black skin alone makes you inferior. Plenty of minorities are saying white skin ALONE makes you racist.

      1. White skin alone makes you privileged.

        1. This is literally only ever said by kids who grew-up wealthy. I assure you that no sane person would tell someone in Appalachia that he is privileged because of the color of his skin. I suspect Tony has a trust fund.

          It makes sense. Socialism has always relied on the useful idiots of the wealthy to propagate its nonsense. Marx was the son of a successful and well connected lawyer and Engels was the son of a wealthy industrialist. True friends of the working man

          1. It’s simply a fact of American life that, all else being equal, a brown person has fewer opportunities than a white person. No matter where they are. I get that poor white people resent this considering their station in life, but then politicians give more lip service to them than anyone else by far, so I’ll leave coddling their delicate feelings to others.

            1. all else being equal

              I think Tony’s trying to point out just how awesome white people are to accomplish so much compared to their peers, no matter which economic bracket they end up in.

            2. Trust fund Tony

              It all makes sense now

              1. Trustifarian is the term you are looking for.

            3. “It’s simply a fact of American life that, all else being equal, a brown person has fewer opportunities than a white person. No matter where they are.”

              You’re saying I can I can stroll into an all-black neighborhood and dominate?

              1. I’m saying that neighborhood is unlikely to be where the rich people live.

                1. Unlike your diverse community, right? Where there are both hipsters and yuppies. Not all trust funds are created equal

                  1. Thanks for making my point?

                    1. Your point only applies to you and your progressive brethren and that’s why you have to make it about race rather than class. The real bigots in this country are rich white liberals. The rest of us cannot afford to segregate ourselves

                2. But of course, the people there bear no responsibility for that.

                  Tell us more about how you think non-whites are inferior.

                  1. Nonwhites are relatively underprivileged. This is only controversial to racist jackasses.

                    1. Thank you for admitting I was correct by dodging.

                    2. Nonwhites are relatively underprivileged. This is only controversial to racist jackasses.

                      Funny, my job is majority black.

                      Leadership is majority black. 75% or so, last time I checked.

                      …Yet I am the privileged one.

                      Funny.

            4. It’s simply a fact of American life that, all else being equal, a brown person has fewer opportunities than a white person.

              Yup, those poor white folks in Kentucky are LADEN with chances.

              I get that poor white people resent this considering their station in life, but then politicians give more lip service to them than anyone else by far, so I’ll leave coddling their delicate feelings to others.

              This doesn’t apply to other races…how?

              All groups like to blame failures on others.

              1. Except poor white trash like to talk about how they don’t need any handouts. Just their social security, medicare, and disability checks. But other than that, they are rugged individualists!

                1. Except poor white trash like to talk about how they don’t need any handouts.

                  Hey, what is your cute, racist name for poor black folks?

                  1. I’m half white trash myself, so I can use it.

                    1. Tony, that’s why you are a useful idiot. You use your racism to keep others down and then tell them you can save them if they only vote Democrat.

                    2. I’m half white trash myself, so I can use it.

                      Again, what is your cute, racist name for poor blacks?

                    3. Again, why do you act like an offended snowflake but only on behalf of white people?

                    4. Again, why do you act like an offended snowflake but only on behalf of white people?

                      If somebody uses slurs against other races, we can address that.

                      Given that it is not happening, stick to the subject.

                      What is your cure but racist nickname for poor blacks?

                    5. It’s telling that the two primary leftwing commenters on here are both hicklibs.

            5. Even stipulating that as true (which it demonstrably is not, as is shown by the relative success of “brown” immigrant groups), “all other things being equal” is such a specific case that it destroys the universality of the notion. All other things are rarely equal.

            6. LOL, Tony.

              Tell that to the thousands of kids passed over for acceptance into university because of their white/asian privilege.

              1. Now that you mention it: Whites are so racist! Except when it comes to Asians, who they seem to think are the True Superior Race.

                Otherwise, how can you explain the fact that Asians do better in school and work than whites?

            7. Politicians (other than our own) give more lip service to less-wealthy White people in “Appalachia” than to ethnic minorities? They do? Which politicians would that be?

              Not that we need it. Most poor White people in Appalachia live better, longer, than medieval kings in old Europe. So do most ethnic-minority Americans. We may need for everyone including ourselves to recognize and repudiate elitist bigotry, but very few of us really need food or shelter.

              I’m 60 miles down the road from the actual town of Appalachia. (I’ve been in Appalachia, twice.) I know there is such a thing as White privilege. I’ve blogged about it–about not wanting to give it up, but wanting people to extend its benefits (basically, trust that I’m not a violent criminal) to non-White, non-old, and non-female people too.

            8. Politicians (other than our own) give more lip service to less-wealthy White people in “Appalachia” than to ethnic minorities? They do? Which politicians would that be?

              Not that we need it. Most poor White people in Appalachia live better, longer, than medieval kings in old Europe. So do most ethnic-minority Americans. We may need for everyone including ourselves to recognize and repudiate elitist bigotry, but very few of us really need food or shelter.

              I’m 60 miles down the road from the actual town of Appalachia. (I’ve been in Appalachia, twice.) I know there is such a thing as White privilege. I’ve blogged about it–about not wanting to give it up, but wanting people to extend its benefits (basically, trust that I’m not a violent criminal) to non-White, non-old, and non-female people too.

        2. That, Tony, is a a fundamentally racist statement.

          1. Why do you people only ever notice racism when it’s allegedly directed at white people?

            1. Why do you people only ever notice racism when it’s allegedly directed at white people?

              Probably because racism against white people is considered socially acceptable now and thus is more obvious.

            2. The cognitive dissonance of it sets my bullshit detector off.

              It is a real world example of “Only the Sith deal in absolutes!”

              1. Oh this is more about how talking about race at all is racism, right?

                1. Why do you try so hard to pretend you aren’t responding to several comments that not only answer that question, but make you look like a moron for asking it?

                2. No, it’s about “Talking about the issues with any group EXCEPT whites is racism”.

                  What you said was exceedingly racist, but you don’t mind because you are laden with white guilt. Which rich folks might have some cause for…but my family owned no slaves.

                  I feel, literally, zero guilt.

                  1. Racists like Tony and his lefty cohorts dno’t consider themselves racist, so they are not.

                    Never mind that people like him consider certain races superior to others. This being the definition of racism phases Tony not.

                    Tony is a useful idiot to the lefty cause and will die trying to enslave you.

                3. It is about making value judgements about people based solely on their skin color. If its wrong, then it it is wrong.

                  The direction that this is going in is toxic. If you keep demonizing whites for being white then you legitimitize movements like the alt right because you are categorizing any dissent with your ideology with them.

                  1. Stop seeing it as demonizing. It’s not like you’re the first white idiots to get defensive over racial justice movements. Would you prefer if people talked about it only when you couldn’t hear it?

                    1. We see it as racism because that is what it is.

                      You consider all races superior to white caucasians. That one fact makes you, Tony, a racist.

                      At the same time, you consider black and brown people inferior and they require people like you , and your socialist cohorts, to save them.

                    2. I would prefer the Left drops this whole line of thought entirely as it only serves to create resentment on all sides and put society at each others throats.

                      I fear that they will not because they like that state of affairs.

        3. At least all those homeless white guys still have their privilege to keep them warm in the winter.

          1. What a totally nonfallacious argument! Because some white people have it bad, white privilege doesn’t exist.

            Think about two equally situated homeless people, one white and one black. Who has a worse go of it, do you think?

            1. No, “white privilege” is a rhetorical bludgeon for intellectually stunted people to make excuses and evade responsibility for their actions.

              Think about two equally situated homeless people, one white and one black. Who has a worse go of it, do you think?

              If you have to quantify this, you just might be a racist.

              1. If I ignore spiders does that make them go away too? I hate spiders.

                1. This is what he does when he realizes he made a fool of himself.

                2. Ignoring a lot of things will result in them having less power over you. It’s called “growing up”.

            2. Think about two equally situated homeless people, one white and one black. Who has a worse go of it, do you think?

              They both have it shitty.

              But you will blame the white guy for both his AND the black guy’s situation, so there’s that.

              1. Among us here I am not the one in the business of blaming poor people for stuff.

                1. Among us here I am not the one in the business of blaming poor people for stuff.

                  Save “White trash”, of course.

                  1. I blame circumstance for their problems too, like a good liberal. You want me to show sympathy? It’s what we do. But they’re the only type of poor people you seem to have any concern for.

                    1. Lefties have zero sympathy for anyone. Its why sending people to the ovens was so easy for socialist Nazis to do.

                      You fake sympathy to manipulate people. Aw, look, this person has no money so we must give them money year after year. We don’t want that person to have to raise themselves up, so government will take money, by force, from other people to give to that poor person.

                      See, no sympathy for the person with the money but loads of “sympathy” for the poor person.

                    2. Your preferred policies decimated the black family and harmed the country overall for decades.

                      Spare me on your concern.

                    3. In the Appalachian Mountains we use these words differently than I think you guys are using them. Circumstances (unemployment, non-payment) are to blame for people’s being poor. Choices (vice, violence) are to blame for their being trash.

                      Rich people can still be trash, and poor people can still be ladies/gentlemen. Being poor is a convenient excuse for being trash, but not an adequate one.

        4. “Tony|4.10.18 @ 10:55AM|#

          White skin alone makes you privileged.”

          At least you’re finally admitting you’re just jealous.

        5. White people may not have the same disadvantages as others, but the lack of a disadvantage IS NOT AN PRIVILEGE! Only in the socialist mindset where equality of misery is a laudable goal does the lack of disadvantage become a privilege.

          Example. It’s terrible tragedy that so many blacks are getting shot by cops merely for being black. But the solution to that is NOT for the cops to start shooting white folk, but for the cops to STOP shooting black folk!

          Being white is not a privilege. It may not confer the same disadvantages that being black does, but it is in itself not a privilege. Get a fucking dictionary.

          1. That’s just semantics. Obviously nobody talking about privilege imbalances thinks society should start treating white people worse in order to achieve parity. Well, some misguided college kids might be, but that’s obviously not what I advocate.

            I think the big hurdle is getting white people to stop thinking that bringing black people up to their level is to do them harm. That’s been the motivating emotional response behind every backlash to racial justice movements.

            1. Socialists like you Tony think only you can fix the world. Black people cannot raise themselves up according to you and your cohorts. Black people certainly had a tough time with Democrats enslaving them and then setting government enslavement programs that kept the socialist boot on their black necks.

              You treat black people like little babies who cannot help themselves. That is why you are a racist Tony.

          2. More white men are shot and killed by cops than are black men.

            Given that blacks commit violent crimes at rates MUCH higher than whites, blacks are actually LESS likely to be shot by police than are whites.

            These are facts. The science is settled.

        6. White skin alone makes you privileged.

          I should take what a bigot like you thinks seriously…why?

    3. Learning about the wider world is always a good thing, particularly for Americans who do tend to be a rather insular bunch (yes, regardless of political leanings). But the idea that public universities exist to push a particular political agenda actually runs counter to that. The student in the article is not looking to open any minds; she wants them closed to all but her own ideas.

      1. “Racism is bad” may be a controversial and arbitrary position in some circles, but I won’t begrudge a university course for assuming it.

        1. Assuming that people you don’t know are racists is simplistic and boneheaded. That, apparently, is what our universities have sunk to: instead of academic study, guilt-tripping people into self-flagellation over something they have no control over.

          1. It’s about institutions, not individuals. I don’t believe you change hearts and minds.

            1. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and some shithead in Oklahoma.

        2. “Racism is bad” is not controversial using the dictionary definition of racism. Motte and Bailey.
          It is controversial using the made-up definition of Marxist cultists, which states that all opposition to Marxist efforts is inherently racist and/or motivated by racism. You simply invent their motivations to make it easier to attack their position without critically thinking whether the position is actually harmful to the “racialized” (a fun new made-up word I heard on the Netflix propaganda program “Ugly Delicious”, designed to drive a wedge between anyone white and not-white. In this show you’ll learn that everything bad that happens to minorities is white people’s fault because they’re just so damn racist).

          1. In this show you’ll learn that everything bad that happens to minorities is white people’s fault because they’re just so damn racist

            Aka, the Howard Zinn history of the US.

            1. Reading Zinn’s history of the US was a surreal experience. He spent the whole book describing how the government throughout our history fucked over women and minorities, and then wound up by saying that what we need is…more government. It was as if he didn’t read his own book.

              1. He spent the whole book describing how the government throughout our history fucked over women and minorities, and then wound up by saying that what we need is…more government. It was as if he didn’t read his own book.

                Zinn was a commie who didn’t have a problem with the system he was supposedly criticizing, just who was running it.

                It’s well-written, but anyone reading a “people’s history” of anything needs to automatically take its conclusions with a large grain of salt.

            2. Howard Zinn was the commencement speaker at my university graduation. It was horrible. So horrible that parents were walking out of their own children’s commencement. It may have been the worst commencement address in the history of commencement addresses.

        3. “Racism is bad” may be a controversial and arbitrary position in some circles

          For instance, my Hispanic relatives’ barrio. They sure don’t see a problem with hating white people and being all about La Raza, that’s for sure.

    4. because they don’t believe in having their preconceived ideas challenged

      Not that you’re wrong, but you’re really not the best pot to be calling THAT kettle black.

      race is arguably what American politics has always been mostly about

      You could argue that, but it’d be a dumb, wrong, simplistic, historically illiterate argument.

      1. Slavery was like the single biggest political issue from the founding until the civil war. The repercussions of slavery, meaning racism, informed everything from then on, from criminal justice policy to social welfare policy.

        1. I think the national bank would be surprised to learn that slavery was the central issue in early America. Even the first attempt at secession had to do with tariffs

          1. But what was the big attempt at secession about?

            1. If you’re going to argue “slavery was like the single biggest political issue from the founding until the civil war” then you’re going to have to demonstrate that all events had slavery as a primary motive and that no other aspects did. You don’t get to pick events that support your position and reject those that don’t.

              For example, I think that expanded Presidential power is the more influential aspect. Slavery was a horrible moral failing but the Union dealt with it largely through one violent convulsion, with a few accompanied spasms.

              1. No I don’t. I just have to demonstrate that it’s like the single biggest political issue of the time. We didn’t fight a civil war over anything else!

                And I think it’s hard to dispute that we wouldn’t have such problems in our criminal justice system without racism. And I know you guys don’t like the welfare state, but a main reason we don’t have as robust a welfare state as other advanced countries is because of the success of tying poverty to race in political rhetoric. The Southern Strategy is still playing itself out in the sorting of the parties.

                1. “We didn’t fight a civil war over anything else!”

                  This is what he actually believes!

                  1. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it

                    Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greely, telling Tony he’s full of shit across time.

                    1. Sigh. At least come up with an original bullshit context-free quote.

                      Lincoln did express that his paramount political concern was saving the union and not freeing the slaves. Why did he have to say this? What was happening to the union that it needed to be saved?

                      Oh yeah, half the country went into open rebellion in order to maintain the institution of slavery.

                    2. And four states in the Union still had slaves. Your point?

                      Clearly, THEY didn’t fight to end slavery.

                      And most of the soldiers certainly didn’t own them.

                      Slavery was the key example of what the states felt were federal overreach. That was their line in the sand. It was a moronic line in the sand, but it is what it was.

                      Slavery was a huge issue. But to pretend it was the biggest the entire time is laughable.

                    3. “Oh yeah, half the country went into open rebellion in order”

                      Ok

                      “to maintain the institution of slavery.”

                      So you’ve said without a shred of proof, while dismissing a quote from Lincoln on the matter. You didn’t even really refute the quote, you simply blathered something about “original bullshit context-free quote.” and then reasserted you opinion. If you are trying to convince anyone of your opinion, provide some quotes of your own.

                      Otherwise, it seems like you are making things up.

                    4. “Tony|4.10.18 @ 1:08PM|#

                      Sigh.”

                      This is how you know you’ve hit a leftist, they resort to affectations like this.

                    5. Are we going to debate whether the civil war was about slavery now? I thought I said I try to avoid the most moronic of right-wing bullshit.

                      I don’t know what that context-free sentence by Lincoln is meant to argue, but Lincoln did not star the Civil War, the South started it to preserve an expand slavery.

                    6. Oh Tony. Slavery is mentioned in the reasons for secession as well as multiple other reasons. The internet is just not your friend because all your little lefty lies can so easily be exposed.
                      CSA causes for secession.

                    7. Horace Greeley is actually a long ago relative of mine. 7th degree cousin IIRC.

                      I channel Horace Greeley to this day. Gives me perspective on how to read between the media’s bullshit.

                2. Again, you do have to prove that slavery was a key motive in each of the big events. Presidential power is an enormous aspect in all of the events from the very beginning of the Republic, even events that had nothing to do with race or slavery. Part of the reason we even have a Constitution is because Congress decided that we needed a President. Even you can’t deny that Presidential power helped push the South towards secession. If Presidential power is a key factor in every event then you have to demonstrate that slavery was also a key factor in every event in order for slavery to be even a contender for “the single biggest political issue from the founding until the civil war”, let alone prove the statement.

                  1. I’m not saying this is a well-established historical truth, but it is my personal theory of American history. Everything in American politics is about race. Obviously that’s something of an exaggeration, but I argue not by as much as you might think.

                    The constitution and founding of the country is riddled with compromises with slavers. It was the crux of whether the country existed or not. We didn’t see fit to fight a civil war before or since except over the issue of slavery. After that, there is scarcely a national political issue that isn’t touched by race relations between blacks and whites.

                    We got a modern civilized state out of WWII expressly because it was promised to be denied to blacks. The civil rights era events go without explanation. The whole Reagan-era “government is the problem” crap, which libertarianism happily aligns itself with, was infused with racism. There was only one way to get white people to vote against expanding the social safety net, and that was to convince them it was a program for lazy blacks.

                    Now we have an overtly racist president and a whole social movement in backlash to a modest call for continued social reforms that just might help some black people.

                    It’s like American whites are obsessed with race or something.

                    1. Everything in American politics about race is because racists like YOU make everything about race.

                      You are correct that there have been numerous compromises with slavers (Democrats) that made America worse off. Luckily, more and more black people are leaving the Democratic Party and finding Libertarianism.

        2. And it’s fun to remember that you, Tony, have allied with the forces that did everything in their power to preserve slavery before the Civil War, and did everything in their power (and still do what they can, to this day) after the Civil War.

          And you mock the party that was founded for the very purpose to oppose the party you have allied yourself with.

      2. He’s just thinking back to the good old days, when the progressive argument for abortion was that it would get rid of criminals and the mentally unfit. This, of course, was code for coloreds.

        1. The entire reason the pro-life movement exists is because it was white women’s duty to preserve the race by reproducing.

          1. Even you aren’t stupid enough to believe that.

            1. Are you stupid enough to believe that Tony isn’t?

          2. Sure, homie, let’s just forget about that fact that abortion was illegal throughout the colonies and then the US until just recently, and then forcibly legalized in places that would not have done it democratically.

            Rather than admit that people might believe that abortion is inherently wrong, let’s just pretend they’re racist, unlike the people who had been agitating to kill brown babies for decades prior in order to save the white race from mixed babies, violent crime, and retardation.

            1. Abortion was illegal until recently? Citation?

              1. Have you heard of Roe v Wade? That alone made 46 states permit abortion to The extent we do now. Before that, those states allowed either no abortions or only abortions in extreme circumstances.

                1. He’s going to argue that wasn’t recently, because he’s old as fuck.

                2. Abortion was legal (until “quickening”) under common law up to the point you’re referencing when people with some nutty ideas decided that it had to be outlawed for stupid religious or racist or sex policing reasons. Outlawed abortion is certainly not the historical norm. It is the new idea. And newly forcing women to give birth against their will ought to be rather strongly justified, I’d think.

                  1. “Abortion was legal (until “quickening”) under common law”

                    Incorrect.

                  2. For someone who is all in on abortion, the least you can do is actually know what you’re talking about.

                  3. Not true. Common law did hold that abortion was illegal after quickening, but in the 19th century physicians realized that quickening was arbitrary; fetuses after quickening were not different from fetuses before quickening (easily seen by the fact that quickening varies by several weeks, depending on the woman or fetus). If they aren’t really that different, then why should it be right to kill a fetus before quickening? They decided it wasn’t.

                    The Hippocratic Oath was a larger factor than religious ideas in the complete criminalization of abortion.

                    1. What does that have to say about forcing women to give birth against their will?

                      We get a lot of our ideas about right and wrong from English common law, so it’s instructive to refer to it, but we obviously have to go further to talk about what current policy should be.

                      What I think is even more relevant about the history of abortion is that women, otherwise completely decent and not deranged, have been performing and soliciting it since forever. People simply haven’t historically thought of miscarriage or pre-quickening abortion as a terrible wrong, certainly not equivalent to baby murder. It’s a cultural norm.

                      But that’s permitted to change and obviously some are very passionately against abortion. So the next problem that crops up is the unequal treatment anti-abortion laws results in for poor women. You can’t leave it up to states to decide the issue. That means women with means can get abortions by going to another state and poor women can’t. That’s unacceptable on equality grounds. And perfectly decent, non-deranged women still routinely seek abortion and don’t think it’s morally outrageous. Even the ones who profess to think that.

                    2. You completely moved the goal posts several times. This leads me to believe that you aren’t actually interested in discussions, as you said in threads below.

                      You first asserted that pro-life was about continuing the white race, implying that this was relatively recent and was based on race. You also implied that abortion was broadly legal until this relatively recent movement based on race. After being shown that, no, abortion was illegal throughout most of the US until Roe v Wade and widely held to be immoral, you started to claim that this was due to religious fanatics. After again being shown that you were wrong (as it was driven by physicians based on scientific conclusions), you are now trying to completely change everything to some moral argument about now and abortion laws. I’m not interested in that. You asserted the absolutely ridiculous belief that pro-life is about continuing the white race and have not offered anything in support. I’ll continue to post but you need to admit that you’ve completely gone off the rails here.

                    3. You haven’t shown anything, you’ve just said things. I suppose if I agree that “it’s complicated” I’d be moving the goalpost.

                      “Race suicide,” or the idea that white people would be outbred by brown people, was so significant a concern that none other than Theodore Roosevelt wrote about it. I will allow that not everyone agrees this to be the primary origin of the anti-abortion movement.

                      Abortion was illegal starting in the 1860s. Before that the “quickening” standard from common law applied, and abortion was in fact extremely common (one abortion per 5 or 6 live births), and was basically that era’s birth control. So it wasn’t considered immoral to abort before quickening, which was the first real evidence a pregnancy involved an actual future baby.

                      We can both agree that the real pro-life movement out of the 60s and 70s came almost entirely from religion. Why then? What else was going on? Oh, women were asserting their rights to sexual freedom. I would also allow that the racist origins of the anti-abortion position pale in comparison to the patriarchal ones.

                    4. “”Race suicide,” or the idea that white people would be outbred by brown people, was so significant a concern that none other than Theodore Roosevelt wrote about it. I will allow that not everyone agrees this to be the primary origin of the anti-abortion movement.”

                      I don’t know about this, but I do have the opinion that the Catholic church opposes abortion and contraception is to create more folllowers. If there’s some grand conspiracy behind pro-life, the Vatican is a major player. If whites were afraid of being diluted by blacks, they should’ve been happy about poor black people being able to get abortions. Most of the women I’ve known did not want an abortion, even though they were pro-choice. Even in the absence of social prohibition, wouldn’t one expect there to be an innate drive to carry children to term?

                      I’m just blowing smoke out of my ass, but I read an article once that posited that women start becoming attached to the embryo during gestation because of oxytocin, etc. Men, whose bodies can’t possibly know they’ve reared a child, start getting attached when they first hold the kid. It’s probably psuedo-science BS, but it makes sense to me that dudes just don’t “get it” until birth.

                    5. What does that have to say about forcing women to give birth against their will?

                      Nothing, unless it endangers the mother as well. Then it’s up to the doctor to disentangle their several obligations.

                      What I think … It’s a cultural norm.

                      It was normal historically and decent women did it. That doesn’t make the act moral. Wife beating and domestic rape were nearly ubiquitous for most of history. Thomas Jefferson screwed his slave. We don’t consider these things okay merely because people used to do them.

                      Many people have different beliefs now because we developed new, more informed, beliefs in the 19th and 20th centuries on fetus development. It doesn’t make them racist or religious, although obviously certain religions have prohibitions against abortion. Those prohibitions are based on different understandings than the normal abortion taboo in the US.

                      But that’s … think that.

                      Anti-abortion laws don’t result in hardship for poor women because they are poor, but rather because of certain lifestyle choices correlated with poor families. Travel between states is easy now, even for poor people. And it’s really not unacceptable on equality grounds. They do not have a right to an abortion and few people argue that. The argument is whether or not they have the right to have an abortion.

                    6. So forcing birth by itself isn’t to do harm to a woman? Giving birth is far more risky a medical procedure than an abortion. This is the problem with abortion, isn’t it? The conflicting rights claims that absolutely can’t be reconciled. So why all the bother conferring new rights on fetuses when humans since time immemorial haven’t had such a cultural taboo against miscarriage or abortion? To the extent that we’re preventing women from having early-term abortions, we’re simply restricting their rights arbitrarily. Because someone decided that an embryo has personhood rights.

                      Add to that the fact that women of means will always have an easier time accessing abortion in a society that makes it scarce, and we have bloodied the face of women’s individual rights for no explicable social purpose.

                    7. You absolutely did move the goal posts. You entirely gave up talking about the supposed racist origins of the pro-life movement until I just pointed out that you gave up. Instead you started talking about the morality of abortion itself and not on the racist motivations you claimed.

                      Again, I don’t fucking care what was considered “okay” in the past. I’m not about to kidnap a West African and force them into slavery, stone some gays, rape my wife, force some Sioux into boarding schools, or a myriad of other things just because it used to be “okay.” You sound like some 70 dude who got caught harassing girls in the workplace, excusing himself by saying “It was just how we did things before. Nobody cared then and everybody did it.”

                      No, I don’t agree that the pro-life movement was primarily religious. A lot of religious people were part of the movement for religious reasons, but it was primarily cultural, coming down from a tradition that believed fetuses did have limited human rights. It was primarily instigated by physicians and statesmen who learned of the actual development of fetuses and decided that, since there was no difference before or after quickening, that it shouldn’t be considered ethical before quickening.

                    8. The reason the pro-life movement cropped up is because suddenly abortion was now almost completely legal everywhere, even in places that would never (and still wouldn’t) democratically or culturally permit it. It happened at the same time as the sexual revolution because the lawyers who argued Roe v Wade were influenced by the sexual revolution and were explicitly looking to overturn anti-abortion laws. Without the sexual revolution Roe v Wade probably wouldn’t have been decided by the Supreme Court, making blanket anti-abortion laws illegal. No need to worry about people trying to restrict women’s rights because of misogyny.

                      “Forcing birth” (by which I assume you mean not performing an abortion) clearly causes harm, but physicians of the 19th and 20th century weren’t only considering harm to the woman but also to the fetus. Again, you keep appealing to tradition but a good progressive such as yourself should not be using that as a crutch. A good Progressive also shouldn’t complain about extending personhood rights to disadvantaged and oppressed populations.

                      How is extending the cultural taboo from post-quickening to all of the fetus’ development more arbitrary than the quickening requirement? Quickening is based on nothing objective and is entirely arbitrary.

                      We shouldn’t implement policies based on their “social purpose”. That’s how we got the eugenics of the progressive era.

                    9. It’s not more or less arbitrary, but it is arbitrary. And you’re right that I neglected the role of physicians. That’s absolutely correct. But physicians are no better than pastors at deciding when a person has rights. From a certain perspective, physicians gave religious anti-abortion people rhetorical ammo in their crusade to police women’s bodies. Surely we do not believe that the regular and socially acceptable occurrence of abortion prior to this time was an ongoing genocide. Or I don’t know, maybe you do.

                      We shouldn’t implement policies based on their “social purpose”.

                      That’s the only reason to have social policies. Even if your single concern in the world is individual liberty, that’s because you think the best society emphasizes individual liberty. (Except the liberty to an abortion, which ironically most women have always had until the last 150 years).

                    10. I don’t believe that physicians are uniquely qualified to make those decisions, but they were in the best position to recognize that nothing fundamentally changes between a fetus whose movements can be felt versus those whose movements cannot. That lack of moral difference pushed many to believe that it isn’t okay at any age, and they were able to convince people that it was so, helping to establish many laws.

                      I actually do believe that it was absolutely terrible that babies were commonly aborted, but I also realize that the women of the period were often subjected to involuntary pregnancies any many were unable to use contraception of any kind for fear of violence. These situations rather outweigh the wrongness of abortion. Those women that were merely unwilling but were able I don’t have any sympathy for.

                      I don’t know what you mean by social purpose, then. Most people intend “social purpose” to mean social engineering, which was the cover for forced assimilation and occupation of nonwhite populations in the 19th century and eugenics in the 20th century.

                    11. They thought of abortion, either spontaneous or human-facilitated, as a horrible event that often caused death or permanent disabilities in women. Because it was.

                      Debate about abortion has only been possible since about the mid-twentieth century because only since then have women’s chances of surviving it been better than 50-50.

                      The first-wave feminists shocked people, and demanded reforms, by saying that disenfranchised women were being driven to the unthinkable horror of trying to facilitate abortion. No one could have told Susan B. Anthony that abortion was a “right” or a “choice”!

          3. That is literally not true

          4. You’re right, everybody is exactly like you and has no genuine beliefs or interest in honest debate. If a person disagrees with you on something, therefore, it must be that they’re part of a vast racist conspiracy.

            1. I don’t know why it’s so controversial and why you people get so upset over it.

              If you are bothered by the fact that institutional racism makes your grand utopian dreams of equal opportunity in a free market a farce, just remember that children exist too, and they complicate that vision even more.

              1. You should introduce us to your new goal posts before referring to them.

              2. Yeah, they’re turning away from your racist agenda, so at least that’s something.

              3. Tony everyone here knows you are a liar. Its why you sockpuppet so much.

                This Tony handled is flamed out.

              4. Institutional racism and other things don’t exist seem to be the bane of your existence.

          5. You are of course familiar with Margaret Sanger’s views on undesirables and abortion.

            1. Yeah, she sounded positively libertarian when it came to eugenics:

              “Eugenists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state.”

              She opposed abortion most of her career and also did not take any steps to repudiate the profound bigotries of her era. Everyone’s complicated.

              1. Eugenics as practiced by socialist Nazis and Democrats.

              2. “Complicated”, haha. Do you have any standards that aren’t double standards? You’re the most cynically partisan person here, you see that right? If the DNC welcomes Richard Spencer with open arms tomorrow and Trump insulted him on Twitter you’d probably join his Dan club in under an hour.

                1. Excuse me, John is the most cynically partisan person here. I’m partisan for entirely noble reasons.

          6. The entire reason the pro-life movement exists is because it was white women’s duty to preserve the race by reproducing.

            Pro-choice exists because they don’t think we need more dark-skinned folks out there anyway.

            1. The Democrats called it “pro-choice” after the Civil War and the Democrats could not enslave black people anymore. Before that Democrats wanted as many black slave babies as possible to increase their wealth far cheaper than buying a new slave.

              The Democrats want only enough blacks to keep their party alive but not too many to bankrupt the USA before the utopia is realized.

          7. You must have a PhD in complete fabricating things. Next are you going to tell us ‘ruleof thumb’ refers to the width of a stick you were legally allowed to beat your wife with? Was basketball invented by slaveoeners to distract black people from their oppression? I’m curious what other abject fictions you have rolling around in there.

    5. It makes any sensible person uncomfortable to be tarred as a racist just because of one’s race. It’s incredibly insulting and offensive and there is little reason to believe that it actually makes anyone less racist or improves race relations.
      We are pretty much the least racist society that there has ever been (not saying there is no racism). Yet to hear activists on college campuses you would think it was the new Jim Crow or something happening. It’s insane to think that this shit has been helping anything.


    6. Automatic reply: liberals too! Yes, but this article is specifically about a course meant to challenge people’s preconceived views of race.

      Specifically, of course, it’s only meant to challenge white people since it’s assumed that people of color can’t learn and thus must be given special treatment by higher education. It’s the soft racism of low expectations.

      Whoops.

    7. How many conservative members of Congress are or were active supporters of racial sunlrenacusts? At least three Democrats are or were affiliated with the Nation of Islam or its leaders.

      Add the fact that most of what leftists call racism is an artifact of failure to control for confounding variables, it looks like you’re the one with your fingers in your ears, and you head up your ass.

    8. Last I checked, political conservatives weren’t rioting on campus just because some liberal was invited to speak.

      Oh, and last I checked, Democrats aren’t aware of their very, very, very racist history.

    9. Hey, Tony – AKA Dipshit,
      Ever wonder why the term “servitude” was included in the 13th and 15th Amendments?
      Because it wasn’t only black people who were held as slaves, or more accurately, in involuntary servitude.
      And let’s not forget that there were black slave owners, too.
      It wasn’t all about race, you racist.

    10. Seems to me there are lots of people who don’t want their preconceived ideas challenged — most of whom form groups that try to stop speakers with whom they (at least think they) disagree from speaking. It’s not the conservatives on campuses around the country who are seeking to put free speech in fetters but your confreres, Tony.

  10. Actually, it’s to expand racism toward whites.

    1. I got the pleasure of spending a night out with some Gender Studies educated white girls. One of them was drunk and couldn’t help herself from spouting “fuck white people” and talking about how she never dates white guys. Proceeds to hit on black guys.

      Experience shows that this ideology is designed to cultivate deep-seated loathing of whiteness. Hitler and Goebbels could hardly have done a better job. But they chose a different target.

      1. Maybe the white guys she hung around were all constantly whining about how bad white guys have it. That just gets annoying.

        1. See, this is where Tony shows his true colors. He thinks that decrying attempts to institutionalize just another form of racism are “constantly whining about how bad white guys have it.”

          It’s like he doesn’t even understand the discussion and is totally intellectually incapable of nuance.

          1. How can I not understand it what with so many white guys droning on and on about it?

            But god forbid a black person ever complain about racism.

            1. No idea really, you don’t strike me as genuinely retarded, but when you say “But god forbid a black person ever complain about racism” you prove you don’t understand it at all.

            2. By the way, you can tell when you’ve stung Tony by how instantly his bitchy, non-sequitur of a reply comes.

              1. I just think that if you want to not talk about race and racism, don’t turn around and bitch about how bad white guys have it these days.

                1. We know. It’s why I keep telling you you’re missing the point, and you keep doubling down on missing the point and not getting it.

                  1. Tony keeps insulting white people, and bringing up race, but doesn’t understand why he’s a racist.

                2. How big is your trust fund, Tony?

                  1. I’ve worked for everything I own. Except the intangible contributions to that wealth I got for free by virtue of being born white and male.

                    Funny enough, I’m pretty sure I was rejected at a job interview once on those bases, but I’m not a titty baby so it doesn’t bother me.

                    1. So pretty big then, I take it. When are you going to start paying your rent or do you just expect your parents to pay for it in perpetuity?

                    2. “but I’m not a titty baby ”

                      And yet, you have spent this time complaining.

                    3. Sorry, who the fuck are you again?

                    4. The guy raking you over the coals.

                      Is this where you post your long history here of being wrong and try to argue that it somehow matters?

                      Or is it Ad Hom time?

                    5. I just need to know if you’re a common libertarian or if you’re full-on MRA. I actually come here because I like talking to right-wingers, but I must avoid the most slack-jawed morons among you, because there’s no point.

                    6. So you went with Ad Hom.

                      How are you so predictable?

                    7. “Except the intangible contributions to that wealth I got for free by virtue of being born white and male”

                      So nothing.

                    8. You can’t honestly believe that. I’ve never been discriminated against because of my gender or the color of my skin. I get favorable treatment by cops. I can voice whatever opinion I want at work without being thought of as bossy. Nobody locks their car doors when I walk by. Understanding relative privilege requires just a tiny bit of imagination.

                      The interesting question to me is whether you people need to believe that bigotry doesn’t systematically harm people because that is required in order to maintain your political worldview, or are you just taking the vulgar bigotry you grew up with and running?

                    9. No bud, I was saying you have no wealth.

                      You’re not a very sophisticated thinker Tones.

                    10. “bigotry doesn’t systematically harm people because that is required in order to maintain your political worldview, or are you just taking the vulgar bigotry you grew up with and running?”

                      I think the interesting question is why you think this doesn’t apply to you and your posts in this thread, and their underlying reasoning.

                    11. You can’t honestly believe that. I’ve never been discriminated against because of my gender or the color of my skin. I get favorable treatment by cops. I can voice whatever opinion I want at work without being thought of as bossy. Nobody locks their car doors when I walk by. Understanding relative privilege requires just a tiny bit of imagination

                      What a bunch of trivial shit to whine about. What kind of hothouse flower are you. The closest thing to an actual concern there is the cops and they kill everybody. That’s a cop are out of control thing, not a race thing.

                      The rest is you crying about literally elementary school crap.

                      OMG! Someone locked a door as I walked by, get me my fainting couch! The vapors!!!

                    12. I get favorable treatment by cops

                      Where do you live? My local cops treat me like shit.

                    13. You can’t honestly believe that. I’ve never been discriminated against because of my gender or the color of my skin.

                      Very few people are.

                      Of any race.

                      The days of “corporate America” being hella racist is basically over. Jim Crow ain’t around any longer.

                      But, people frequently dislike looking inwards for a lack of success…

                      I get favorable treatment by cops.

                      Must be nice. I don’t.

                      I can voice whatever opinion I want at work without being thought of as bossy.

                      The gift of being a mind-numbed Prog. Say anything remotely right-wing and bye-bye career.

                      Nobody locks their car doors when I walk by.

                      You do that to blacks?

                    14. Oh how kind of your people to finally end racism. Long time coming. I’ll let black people know.

                    15. Tony speaks for black people. How racist of him.

                    16. Oh how kind of your people to finally end racism.

                      Oh, whites have improved leaps and bounds.

                      Shame literally no other group is expected to do the same. Hell, Democrats still happily stand by virulently racist anti-Semites.

                      I’ll let black people know.

                      From behind a locked door and a tightly rolled up window…

                    17. It’s just that we’re not going to find many here. Oh, yet another pathology of being black: they’re so rarely libertarian. The Great Society did that too, huh?

                    18. Is it my concern why blacks vote as they do? I care as little about their voting patterns as I do for other groups. I’d argue that voting 95% for Democrats insures that no party is going to do a thing to help them (Dems do not need to and the GOP won’t be helped in doing so anyway)…but it is not my concern.

                    19. “(Dems do not need to and the GOP won’t be helped in doing so anyway)”

                      What’s worse, if the GOP does anything to help blacks, they are accused of being racist…so they are actively discouraged to offer any sort of help.

                      But then, besides ending slavery, attempting to establish rights for former slaves, and helping to pass the Civil Rights Act, what have Republicans done for blacks, anyway?

                    20. “I’ve never been discriminated against because of my gender or the color of my skin.”

                      If you’ve been denied a job or promotion, anywhere that there is an “affirmative action” program – whether they admit it, or not – then you have.
                      It is the only institutionalized racism in the country.
                      It only happens to white people, who have been told they must accept it.
                      I don’t look at that as being “privileged”.

                    21. You were born male?

                      Awful generous description of yourself there, sparkles.

                    22. Nothing ambiguous about that sweetie, emphasis on big.

            3. Black racial activists and politicians have made careers out of blaming every facet of their lives on racism. When it’s as socially acceptable to get your picture taken with David Duke as with Louis Farrakhan, maybe you’ll have a point. Until then, you’re just another little racist twat.

        2. So getting sick of having to listen to a black person blame all his problems on white people justifies becoming racist against white people?

          1. *against black people

      2. $50 says it was a white girl whose parents have money, like trust fund Tony over here

      3. Hmm. Was she by any chance one of those black-haired beauties onto whom White guys project their fantasies about some “exotic culture” they imagine to be especially alluring?

        Or had she just dumped some sleazy two-timing White bum, so that she wanted the next young man in her life to be as unlike him as possible?

        (I ask because I am legally White and have most often been attracted to White men…but *dang*, some of them have been about as confused, about biracial women and other things, as the Black men who’ve asked me for dates. Fortunately, all but one of these poor souls showed extreme confusion at or before the asking stage.)

  11. a quantitative reasoning course (the bane of my existence)

    YOU had a hard time with quantitative reasoning? It’s like I don’t even know you anymore.

    1. They didn’t have Vox explainers on quantitative reasoning when Robby was in college. Give him a break

  12. These lefties are so racist that they cannot even see it.

    If you think another race is inferior to your, you’re a racist.

    rac?ism
    ?r??siz?m/
    noun
    prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

    the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

    1. Noticing that social outcomes differ between races is not the same as thinking one race is superior to another. You’re definitely not winning any points for team white.

      1. But telling all white people that they are racist is most definitely racist under the second definition.

        1. Everyone’s a little bit racist.

          1. Doesn’t that mean blacks can be racist, Past Me?

            1. Obviously. Now let me get my remedial kindergarten racism book out and explain this in small words.

              The project of combating racism is not about what goes on inside the heads of individuals. It’s about the social outcomes that result from racism that exists institutionally. You’re not personally responsible for that, so all you insufferable crybabies can calm down about that.

              1. So how do you change institutions without changing the minds of individuals? If the king of the world decrees that everyone will be kind, and gentle, and kill the gays, is everyone in the world automatically going to do that?

                1. Sorry, I thought you were loveconstitution for a second, hence the insult. That’s actually a very good question, and if someone had the answer to it then we’d have the problem solved by now.

              2. “You’re not personally responsible for that, ”

                That would seem to remove any motivation to help combat it then.

                1. Nobody’s asking or expecting you to.

              3. You’re not personally responsible for that

                “white privilege” says otherwise.

                So, if I’m a racist NO MATTER WHAT — why should I be nice? It being the “right thing to do” means dick to me if I’m STILL a “racist” regardless.

              4. You’re not personally responsible for that, so all you insufferable crybabies can calm down about that.

                Come on, man. It could just be that people here (or some of them, at least) don’t disagree with you because of personal feelings being hurt, but because they actually think it is an important issue and have come to different conclusions than you have.

                1. Speak for yourself. Tony has already shown that most of us are part of a conspiracy of racists, determined to do… something…

                  1. According to Tony, ‘Us’ conspire to hold definitions of words consistent so everyone is on the same page about what a word means. It thwarts lefties at every turn.

                2. I was clearly only talking to the insufferable crybabies. Between them and the ones upthread arguing that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, I’m sure an honest interlocutor will pop up.

                  1. Nobody upthread argued that the Civil war was not partly caused by slavery. Get Obama’s dick out of your eye sockets and read.

                    You probably didnt even read by link to actual CSA causes for seceding. Its lists slavery and slavery related issues as well as numerous other reasons for every state.

              5. The only racism “that exists institutionally” in America is affirmative action and it punishes only white people for the color of their skin.
                Though in college admissions, they do it to Asians, too.

          2. Depends on how you define racist. Is acknowledging that there are some differences between races and that it is possible that they are not purely cultural racist? Is the observation that most common stereotypes have some basis in reality racist? Is thinking that racial stereotypes are funny and making dumb jokes about it racist?

            I prefer to define racism as the idea that it is reasonable and possibly desirable to treat people differently simply on the basis of their race. In which case I don’t think everyone is a little bit racist. Maybe everyone has a little bit of bias and prejudice. But I think that needs a separate category from racism as I defined it above.

            1. You’d have to be especially dense not to realize that obviously genetic factors can influence culture, but you’d need to be even denser to think that genetics is the sole cause of culture.

              Ever see that one white kid in a group of black kids? Who’s culture do you think that kid identifies with?

              It’s simply intellectually lazy beyond belief to call people that notice bad shit that happens in cultures as ‘racist’. As if a black person’s culture must be that of Africa. Laughable.

      2. “Noticing that social outcomes differ between races is not the same as thinking one race is superior to another”

        True. Except ascribing that the entire difference in outcome is based on race alone is racist. And progressives aren’t even good racists as whites do not earn the highest median income of all racial categories.

        1. So are you saying there is something inherently different about black people that to some extent makes their outcomes worse than whites or Asians in this country? It kinda seems like that’s what you’re saying.

          1. That is not what he said. Stop projecting your own crypto-racism onto others.

            1. All i mentioned was “noticing” that social outcomes are different based on race. Just Say’n obviously notices that as well. But he felt the need to say that race-based differences in outcome aren’t entirely race-based, which apart from being nonsensical obviously means something to him.

              1. Well, Past Me, there’s also the impact of broken homes and poverty, and a higher tolerance for having kids out of wedlock in black communities. But I’m sure that’s not important at all.

                “Yeah this one right here goes out to all the baby’s mamas’ mamas…
                Mamas, mamas, baby mamas’ mamas
                Yeah, go like this”

                1. So something inherent about black people make them more tolerant for broken homes and poverty? What is that thing, precisely?

                  1. A culture that seems to glorify that lifestyle?

                    Jay-Z made a killing peddling that type of shit.

                  2. Who says it’s inherent?

                    You wanna talk about institutions, let’s talk about culture, specifically the culture that exists in the ghettos that lets young men off the hook for getting their girlfriends pregnant. Go ahead, Past Me. Explain this. Because that system doesn’t exist throughout Africa, so it’s not a race thing. It’s a culture thing.

                    So go ahead, Past Me. Talk about this specific institution.

                    1. So take it one logical step further… if there’s a culture dominant among blacks that fosters bad social outcomes, isn’t that just another symptom?

                      Is your thesis that people organize themselves by race and then arbitrarily choose a culture, which may or may not be good for them?

                    2. My thesis is that you somehow want to ignore the fact that maybe, just maybe, one of the biggest problems for black people…is the culture they’re in that they themselves create. That maybe that culture fosters problems. That maybe it’s not “white racism” that’s the primary driver of black poverty…but “black ghetto culture.”

                      Blacks are now (on average) poorer than they were 50 years ago. Coincidentally, over that time frame the culture has gone from “work to better yourself” to “whitey’s always gonna keep us down so why bother?”

                      It’s like that scene in Do the Right Thing where the old man talking with his friends points out that none of them are ever going to open a store. The Koreans are, and the Koreans get ahead…but the blacks don’t and get left behind. It’s almost as if different cultural situations lead to different outcomes. But that couldn’t possibly be true, otherwise we’d be forced to conclude that a freer capitalistic society does better?in pretty much every way?than a repressive Communist society. And that can’t be the case.

                      Unless you’re going to showcase your historical ignorance by claiming that whites like Asians and that’s why Asians can get ahead.

                    3. Do fewer Black people open stores because, news flash, fewer *people* open stores, these days? Because people would rather wail about “the economy” and let big corporate chains own it, rather than making the effort to offer alternatives?

                      I’m sitting in a town that currently has just one supermarket–a loathsome one. We had a locally owned grocery store last year. The young man who took it over lost control and let it close. I’ve talked to a few people about buying that store to bring it back. “Oh nooo, the economy’s down, Food Lion is so big, people can drive ten or twenty miles to the other towns anyway, and we’d have to WORK in the store every day!”

                      The stereotype is that Asian (legal immigrants) are the ones who still make the effort. Actually, in some cities, these days it’s equally likely to be African immigrants.

                    4. Is your thesis that people organize themselves by race and then arbitrarily choose a culture, which may or may not be good for them?

                      Groups don’t frequently engage in self-destructive behaviors? Is that going to be your argument here?

                      Do people organize themselves by race? It couldn’t be more clear that yes, yes they do. That’s why elite Prog suburbs are so white they get lost in the snow.

                      Do they choose a culture? All culture is, theoretically, arbitrary, so yes.

                      Is the culture potentially bad for them? Do you really need an answer? Plenty of cultures are horrendous for their adherents.

              2. But he felt the need to say that race-based differences in outcome aren’t entirely race-based

                That’s because that’s a very important fact. If outcomes are different because of racial discrimination, you’ve got one problem. If outcomes are different because of various cultural (and possible genetic) factors, some of which do exist because of historical racism, you have a rather different problem.

                1. Treating the “culture” as a symptom rather than a cause and blaming it on historical racism… you’re practically a SJW!

                  1. Tony|4.10.18 @ 1:54PM|#
                    Treating the “culture” as a symptom rather than a cause and blaming it on historical racism… you’re practically a SJW!

                    Yup, SJWs are racists that are part of the problem.

              3. You just twisted everything that was said, trust fund Tony

          2. “So are you saying there is something inherently different about black people that to some extent makes their outcomes worse than whites or Asians in this country? It kinda seems like that’s what you’re saying.”

            Don’t ever accuse me of bigotry, trust fund Tony. While you were living off of your parent’s money, I was translating for my immigrant parents growing up.

            There are factors in culture, irrespective of race, that produce different outcomes. Which explains why African immigrants have a higher median income than African Americans born in the US

            1. And the entire history of how native blacks have been treated in this country has less to do with their social outcomes than the arbitrary “culture” they’ve chosen out of a hat?

              1. Did I say that, trust fund Tony? No doubt that places a part in their current condition, but broken families also play a role. Not to mention that the use of local government to displace them from communities so that rich white liberals such as yourself can live in those communities, also play a role.

                The only thing that I have highlighted this entire time is how convenient it is for trust fund kids, such as yourself, to always be pushing the race card (which is arbitrary) rather than discussing class distinction, because then the blame is on you. A white kid in Appalachia is no more privileged than a black kid on the South Side of Chicago. But, you wouldn’t understand that, because your parent’s money has sheltered you from having to confront reality. You instead chose to parrot the talking points of equally ignorant college professor who are even more clueless about reality than yourself.

                1. broken families also play a role

                  Why is it so hard to take the leap from “centrueis of oppression create bad social outcomes” to “broken families is one of those bad social outcomes”? Why are you so insistent on squeezing in a bit of “they did it to themselves”? Is that also the case for white Appalachians and the culture they chose?

                  the use of local government to displace them from communities so that rich white liberals such as yourself can live in those communities

                  Another example of oppression! Kind of a bit selective to talk about gentrification when this country has a rich history of actually kicking black people out forcefully and burning their neighborhoods to the ground, especially if they had the audacity to make a little money.

                  A white kid in Appalachia is no more privileged than a black kid on the South Side of Chicago.

                  What about a black kid in Appalachia? Again, you can’t be serious with the argument that because some white people are poor, there isn’t a race problem. Didn’t we start by agreeing that there are measurable differences in outcome distinguished by race?

                  1. Welfare demands that black fathers not be in the home or their income is counted.

                    Welfare rules not centuries of slavery causes modern broken homes for black people.

                    1. And there’s something in welfare rules that says it’s only given to black people?

                    2. Welfare rules apply to every race of people that get it.

                      We were talking about black broken homes. I know you didn’t attend school past the 6th grade but think real hard about what others are telling you.

                    3. So why doesn’t welfare break white homes? Or what are you arguing?

                    4. White single motherhood is growing significantly, thanks largely to cultural demands from your side, Tony.

                    5. Welfare does break white homes. Black People disproportionately receive welfare, so it disproportionately affects them.

                      And slavery didn’t destroy cause the ruin of black institutions like family, etc. I again refer to Robert Fogel’s work.

                  2. “Why are you so insistent on squeezing in a bit of “they did it to themselves”? Is that also the case for white Appalachians and the culture they chose?”

                    Yes.

                    “So why doesn’t welfare break white homes? Or what are you arguing?”

                    Yes.

                    In reading about Kevin Williamson’s bullshit this past week, one (liberal, I think) commentator said that she frequently references to this article about self-defeating behavior amongst white trash. It’s the only article of his that I’ve read because he’s an asshole, but really give it a try. The part about the country songs glorifying alcoholism resonated with me. I’d noticed that just listening to the radio in a car with relatives; seriously, almost every song involves drinking. It’s like all the rap songs about weed, except booze is way fucking worse.

                    The white trash sitting around poppin’ oxys and listening to right-wing victim rhetoric all day are a huge problem. I think these guys are trying to argue that the victim mindset is toxic to everyone.

                    1. But what makes people the “bad” kind of black or white poor person? Isn’t there kind of an obvious common thread that doesn’t rely on webs of psychobabble?

                    2. “But what makes people the “bad” kind of black or white poor person?”

                      Choices. There are myriad reasons why poor people make poor decisions, but whatever the reason they are refusing to mesh with modern society. This is why Reason is always pushing the “pack up and move to the city angle.” I don’t care if people want to live in the sticks if they can support themselves (i.e. there are jobs needing to be done there and they are therefore functioning in society), but as a society we should encourage people to follow opportunities. Folks are proud to be poor but also want to be magically made not poor so they can keep doing the things that make them poor? Don’t fetishize poverty; poverty is a bad thing, and you should want to pull your family out of it.

                      Country songs talkin’ about being broke, but going to the bar every night at 5PM in a new lifted Chevy? Isn’t that money better spent on a kid’s education or a mortgage, etc?

                    3. I’ve noticed the songs too…actually wrote a song about them, in case anybody wants to sing it!

              2. After blacks were freed, they could have gone back to Africa. They were ‘stolen’ after all.

                Nearly everyone stayed in the USA and started families. They chose to be Americans.

                If you lefties ever stop thinking black people are helpless little slave kin, much of your identity politics strategy will just fade away.

              3. Why did black single motherhood explode after the 1960’s? At the depths of Jim Crow, out-of-wedlock births were a minority of all births. Now…very much not the case.

                The black family survived fucking slavery…but the Great Society did that in. And the damage that broken families does to kids is not exactly unheard of.

                1. Wow. Just molest some little girls and you could run for senate in Alabama.

                  1. Worked for Bill Clinton riding the “Lolita” Express and his political aspirations.

                  2. At what point is any of that incorrect? The black nuclear family was a rock-solid component of society for centuries. But the Great Society absolutely destroyed it. The statistics are damning of the impact of your preferred method of helping folks. How many kids are born to single mothers? That is one of the most key aspects for a life in poverty.

                    But, yes, noticing the negative impact of policies is the EXACT same thing as racism. Identical.

                    Sorry if your preconceived notions of race got challenged there.

                    1. I was referring to your little comment about slavery. Black families did quite the opposite of survive during slavery.

                      I’ll allow for the sake of argument that the answer to the question “Why are black families split more than others” has been debated endlessly with many different proposals.

                      The problem is that your proposal and similar ones rely on racism. White poor people get federal assistance too. Does it destroy their marriages? You still have to explain what it is specifically about black people that makes them have these poorer outcomes.

                      But you’re not stripping everything away and saying there’s something about blacks, because you say that they had stronger families in the past. And since welfare goes to all races, that can’t explain anything. What is a way blacks are treated differently in the 20th century? Think hard. Who makes up 50% of the prison population? And what gender are they? Might that have something to do with the possibility of stable families? And did the Great Society not directly precede the policy of mass incarceration?


                    2. White poor people get federal assistance too. Does it destroy their marriages?

                      Yes, but again it’s something of a bullshit question since if they’re actually married they likely don’t qualify for welfare in the first place. Welfare rules encourage people never to get married at all and not to seek better employment, lest their transfer payments of ‘free’ money suddenly dwindle to absolutely nothing.

                      It’s called the ‘welfare cliff’ and it’s designed to keep people dependent on those programs. It’s mostly a bipartisan effort to keep a permanent underclass of voters who’s interests are aligned with statists, but it’s notable that most resistance to reform for those programs comes mostly from Democrats.

                      Not to say that Democrats don’t pay lip service to reform, but you’ll note the Trump effort to curtail spending was met with essentially ‘no cuts, never, for any reason’ by virtually all Democrats and a majority of Republicans. That says a lot for the chances of reform for the biggest expenditures by the U.S. government I.E. virtually nil.

                    3. Abso. Flippin’. Lutely. And yes, 60 miles outside the town of Appalachia, if you were in the cafe with me we could watch a few dozen of the welfare-addicted waddle down the streets today.

                      Actually older people, who already own their homes and aren’t rearing children, get food stamps and bogus “disability/retirement” pensions that don’t require fathers to abandon their children. But yes, there are 20-and-30-year-old White couples who split up so Mom can get those benefits for the kids.

                      (Is it only in America that reported poverty correlates POSITIVELY with obesity?)

                    4. I was referring to your little comment about slavery. Black families did quite the opposite of survive during slavery.

                      The black family STRUCTURE.

                      At the worst times possible for them, black people still didn’t have kids out of wedlock unless raped as a general rule. Kids had a mom and a dad. The black family structure survived a system that was DESIGNED to ruin it. But Progressive “help”…yeah, that was rough.

                      The problem is that your proposal and similar ones rely on racism. White poor people get federal assistance too. Does it destroy their marriages?

                      Increasingly so, yes. The white family is not as decimated as the black family (they’ve had far fewer progressives trying to “help” them)

                      White illegitimacy rates are getting worse each year.

                      What is a way blacks are treated differently in the 20th century? Think hard. Who makes up 50% of the prison population?

                      The sheer volume of crime statistics involving black males is borderline depressing. And not small stuff. Murder. Rape. Horrifyingly bad.

                      But, no it’s not that their family unit is basically non-existent. Or that the culture they live in glorifies that bullshit. Nope. Gotta be whitey’s fault. Now, the DNC pulled off as Congresspeople what they failed to achieve as the Klan. And, the only ones who can fix it now are black folks. But Democrats don’t have much of a reason to want that and seek to undermine it.

                  3. That’s a weird way to concede the point, but ok.

                2. The worst part of the “Great Society” was the concept that “we can’t impose our culture” on those who had recently been legislated into having “civil rights”.
                  In the words of Thomas Sowell: “You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization ? including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain ? without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.”
                  On the whole, black Americans were doing better economically and culturally before the “Great Society.”

      3. Nor are differences in outcomes proof of racism. And once confounding variables have explained a difference entirely, it is not evidence of racism at all.

    2. Leftists have redefined racism to be about racial power imbalance. This allows them to assert that blacks cannot possibly be racist. And by their definition it’s true. But they’re not using the same dictionary you and I are. They get into trouble when they get to Asians, because there’s a different power balance there. Asians tend to excel academically despite continuing bigotry. So are Asians a demographic that needs to be specially protected or do they need to be excluded from the quotas? The lefties can’t answer that coherently.

      1. These questions were being dealt with eloquently 100 years before you were born. And of course there’s a spectrum of policy approaches between “quotas” and ignoring the issue completely.

        1. Do you notice how Tony seems to constantly vaguely infer at arguments he has neither read nor comprehends? Why not just post the arguments?

          1. Tony spouts the lefty narrative. That is all he ever does. The narrative is basic and does not allow real discussion when faced by experienced talkers like Libertarians.

            Libertarians have to fight the left and the right, so we tend to be very knowledgeable about hot button topics. This knowledge is more than lefties can handle, so they shift to insults or whatever in hopes you go away.

            1. Don’t pretend that you’re in the middle of things, Trump lover.

              1. Aw Tony. Every time I say something to your silly posts, its not the middle of things but guts your nonsense. Every…time. Hitler lover.

                Tony, remember when the Nazis tried not to be so socialist as the Communists?

  13. And yet we wonder why conservatives have soured on higher education.

    I don’t think it’s just conservatives who’ve soured on it.

    1. Other stupid people as well?

      1. A lefty calling people stupid is so funny because that is what higher education teaches now.

        Tony learned how Trump is a poo poo head in the last grade he attended- the 6th grade.

      2. No, a broad base of people, including potential academics. I’m in STEM and there are nowhere near enough jobs for the number of people getting advanced degrees. Chemistry is currently shitting itself silly, for example. Non-STEM disciplines are in even more dire straits. It’s difficult for these potential academics to know how it is until they actually get the degrees and have access to the information. In the meantime, they’re just used as cheap (in STEM) or free (in most everything else) labor.

        For PhD students, they are supposedly being taught in order to take high-level positions in business or start working in academia, but only a few academic positions open nationwide in each field every year and the number of potential candidates is staggering. Business doesn’t really need all of these people either, especially those who worked in non-STEM or business oriented fields. They then get to compete with people who only achieved a bachelor’s, making the same amount of money as they would have had they not bothered with the extra years of education.

        All this while the cost is increasing dramatically.

        1. The bizarre thing, to me, is the few women I know who actually received a STEM degree left STEM as soon as they possibly could. The reason I hear from them? Long hours that don’t leave time for their kids, and ease of being replaced (although notably, as women, they were there a lot longer than laid off male colleges, likely because of their gender.)

          It makes me facepalm every time, but in their defense they’re also not rabid feminists or misandrists they’re just being honest.

          It’s not really ‘evidence’ since I only know perhaps three women in such a situation, and none of them went on to get their masters, but it’s still interesting to me.

          1. Seems women don’t really want to go into STEM in the first place. Whether that’s 100% cultural or due to intrinsic differences in their interests, I can’t say.

            And despite all the advantages with finding and retaining jobs, there is still misogyny in STEM jobs, especially with the older guys (super especially blue collar) who are nearing retirement. They’d haze a young, bright-eyed dude bad enough, but a young woman is expected to be just worthless when it comes to be rational, and the normal struggles she might face as a result of inexperience is attributed to her gender. This is on top of legit sexual harassment, which is overblown in the narrative. In most businesses, everyone knows HR will jack you up if you slap a girl’s ass at work. We’ve actually done a good job reducing this since the 80s and 90s. Small businesses are another matter, and the girls I knew working for some of the 30-person operations got the hell out of there ASAP after graduating.

            And yeah, some of the problems women have with STEM jobs is that they are catered for men. Dudes don’t need maternity leave, and a lot of company cultures glorify a shitty work/life balance and misery measuring contests. Women don’t want that shit, and I don’t blame them.

      3. Other stupid people as well?

        Getting a four year degree in any subject at any cost is definitely the smart move.

        1. Oh yeah, sometimes I forget that some people have to pay for that.

          1. But only poor white trash, so they don’t matter…amirite?

            1. Not if they do well enough on their SAT.

              1. Tony think scholarship money is created from scholarship trees. Its FREE its FREE!

                Trying to explain to Tony that paying students made/make up the shortfall between incoming and outgoing is like trying to get him admit Nazis were/are socialists.

                1. My point to Paul was to correct myself. Not going to college can indeed be the outcome of a rational cost-benefit analysis given how expensive it is.

                  I think this is a dire national emergency, because people are missing out on higher education, but they’re not stupid for not going into massive debt for the rest of their lives.

                  1. If you’re looking to ruin ‘higher education’, few things will accomplish that goal faster than making it ‘free’.

                    Don’t believe me? Look at the entirety of ‘public education’.

                    1. I dunno. Higher education is pretty shitty now and it costs a lot. I have doubts it can get much worse.

                  2. How is it a dire national emergency? College attendance rates have risen fast in recent decades. If anything too many people attend college. The economic benefits of a college education are mostly derived from signaling, so not only is public subsidy of it largely a waste of money, it’s actually harmful because it depletes the effectiveness of the signaling.

                  3. The dire national emergency comes from easy-to-get student loans which convince a LOT of people who would be better served getting jobs in blue-collar sectors, and weighing them down with gobs of debt, thus leading to a surplus of people with useless degrees working as baristas at Starbucks, and a shortage of welders, plumbers, and other much-needed blue-collar workers.

                    Student loans need to be bankruptable, and the people backing the student loans need skin in the game, and thus incentive, to tell students that going $200k in debt to get a doctorate degree in 14th Century Proto-Lesbian Underwater Basketweaving Studies is a bad idea.

                2. When students go to the financial aid office, they’re not told “Well, there’s a small trust fund that offers $1000 to one student from your neighborhood, per year, based on an essay contest, and another one that offers $200 to one student in your major field, and one that offers $500 to a *girl* in your major field who chooses to be roommates with a foreign exchange student, and…” It may still be possible to patch together college funding that way, but school staff don’t bother doing it! What they tell students is “The federal government offers the basic grant, the supplementary grant, this loan…”

                  So not only does the scholarship money not grow on scholarship trees (except in the rare cases where a teacher picks the student who gets a private scholarship)–it’s growing in taxpayers’ pockets.

      4. Is believing in man spreading and the racism inherent in white people wearing dreadlocks your new litmus test for intelligence? Why don’t you take a break from commenting. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  14. “The purpose of the Race and Ethnicity requirement is to get white people to be a little less racist, for people to be a little bit more knowledgeable about the world they live in.”

    Few societies — today and in all of human history — have been less racist than 21st century USA.

    If Allie Brown knew anything about the world she lives in and its history, she would know this is true and wouldn’t say stupid shit like this.

  15. Dang, I missed out on this thread. It turned into a real rip roaring event.

    1. Well, it seems that Tony had some free time today and we got into an argument about abortion. And you know how people hate him so.

    2. Tony came by and shat all over the place like an orangutan on a diet of peaches. A real glutton for humiation he is.

  16. As a white African American I ALWAYS check that box and then dare them to question me. Always have always will.

  17. The purpose of the requirement is to train kids to identify everything they disagree with as ‘racist’ and then report it as spam and then go out and party.

  18. Jeez, can we just reelect Trump now and get it over with?

  19. I feel like I have to say this after every one of Robbie’s sensationalist articles…

    The inmates do NOT run the asylum. We give students the illusion that they have a say, but at the end of the day we realize they’re just children and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. We’re kinda like politicians talking about their constituents.

    You guys are of course free to spout off about indoctrination and the radical left agenda. Whatever floats your boat. But while you’re doing that, remember that a greater proportion of people in my profession are libertarians than in your profession.

  20. Do they include the statistics of black on black and black on white crime in these courses? Just white shaming bullshit.

  21. And this is one of the reasons I tell my wife that college may not be the right path for our daughter after high school. She insists it’s necessary, but it seems a trade/technical school would be far more productive. The idea of paying a college for the “privilege” of letting them indoctrinate you is just wrong. You should be going to college to learn what you need for your future career; colleges have become anything BUT centers of learning. A trade school; you pay them money and they teach you what you need to learn, no fuss over “learning your place in the universe”. Thanks, I can manage to learn my place in the universe by actually LIVING AND WORKING in the actual world, not sitting in your indoctrination focus groups.

    1. Don’t be afraid. Just take an active role in understanding the topics your daughter might be learning and the courses she’s taking. She’ll undoubtedly be exposed to ideas that are different than the ones in your household, but that’s not a bad thing. Hopefully she’ll be smart enough to make her own decisions.

      Also, encourage her to seek out a trade if she decides on college. There are TONS of courses offered that will allow her to prepare for entry into an industry, and most reasonably-sized universities offer opportunities for students to work directly in an industry or at least work with research groups actively engaged in development, discovery, etc.

      Bottom line: it’s not a big scary thing for her unless you let it be.

    2. What you call indoctrination normal people call getting a well-rounded education. I hate to break this to you, but you are not the smartest human to ever live, and you are wrong about things. Your child’s higher education is about exposing her to ideas you haven’t even thought might exist. People who think college is an indoctrination are idiots who haven’t been to college.

      1. Tony, I’m sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but you aren’t exactly the smartest person to ever live either, and hey, you are wrong about a *lot* of things.

        I’ve been to college; it’s even likely that I have even been to college longer than you. I call BS on your statement that “people who think college is an indoctrination are idiots who haven’t been to college.” I have been to college, and I have seen first-hand how conservative and libertarian ideas are mocked, scorned and marginalized. When the college goes through a lot of effort to make certain that only one set of ideas are permissible in the classroom, and other sets of ideas aren’t even considered, then (1) it’s fair to say that the student isn’t getting a well-rounded education, and (2) it’s fair to call it indoctrination.

        I would go so far as to propose that if the ideas of Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopolos (among others) had already been discussed and argued over in classrooms, that inviting them on campus to discuss their ideas would have produced yawns rather than riots.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.