MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Debate: 'The Message of Anti-Racism Has Become as Harmful a Force in American Life as Racism Itself'

A live Reason/Soho Forum debate featuring John McWhorter and Nikhil Singh in New York on Wednesday, November 14

Soho ForumSoho Forum"The message of anti-racism has become as harmful a force in American life as racism itself."

That's the proposition under debate at the next Reason/Soho Forum debate, which will feature Columbia University linguist John McWhorter and NYU historian Nikhil Pal Singh and will take place at New York's Subculture Theater on Wednesday, November 14.

The Soho Forum is a monthly debate series moderated by Gene Epstein and sponsored by Reason. It's an Oxford-style debate, meaning the audience is polled before and after discussion and the winner is the person who moves the most people toward his or her position. On November 14, McWhorter will defend the proposition and Singh will oppose it. Tickets cost between $12 and $24 and must be purchased in advance. (Go here to buy tickets.) The admission cost includes a buffet of appetizers and light fare, and there's a cash bar serving beer, wine, and soft drinks.

Each Soho Forum is released as a Reason video and podcast. Go here for a full archive of past debates.

Here's more information on the debaters:

John McWhorter is associate professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, teaching linguistics, western civilization, and music history (in the Core Curriculum program) and American Studies. He is a regular columnist for Time and CNN, writes for the Wall Street Journal "Taste" page, and writes a regular column on language for The Atlantic. He has also been contributing editor for The New Republic, The Root, and City Journal and a regular columnist at The New York Sun, The New York Daily News, and The Daily Beast.

Nikhil Pal Singh is professor of social and cultural analysis and history at New York University, and founding faculty director of the NYU Prison Education Program. A historian of the civil rights movement, foreign policy, and national security in the 20th-century United States, his most recent book is Race and America's Long War (University of California Press, 2017). He is also the author of the award-winning Black Is a Country: Race and the Unfinished Struggle for Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2004). Singh's writing and historian interviews have appeared in a number of popular venues, including New York, n+1, Time, The New Republic, The Intercept, Open Source, and Code Switch.

And here are details about the event:

Cash bar opens at 5:45pm
Event starts at 6:30pm
Subculture Theater
45 Bleecker St,
New York, NY 10012

Seating must be reserved in advance.

Moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Here's the video of the most-recent Soho Forum debate, featuring Epstein debating Jacobin magazine's Bhaskar Sunkara over whether capitalism or socialism is more effective at bringing freedom to the masses.

Photo Credit: Soho Forum

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.

  • AlmightyJB||

    White people are awful

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    It's OK to be white.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's exactly what Hitler would say.

  • DiegoF||

    Wouldn't he more likely say something in German?

  • DenverJ||

    Austrian

  • DiegoF||

    "It's fair dinkum to be white, mate!"

  • ||

    Wrong kind of Austrian, racist.

  • Sevo||

    "It's fair dinkum to be white, mate!"

    Far-western Austrian.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Y'all be mixin' up Austria w/ Australia, methinks! And the primary language; German v/s English...

    G'day, mein herr, ich bin putting der shrimp on der barbie.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You know, out of the blue, the question occurs to me...

    Rabbits are NOT native to Australia, and they have run AMOK down under! Suppose they ever successfully interbreed with kangaroos!!! The results would be HOPPERS FROM HELL, with super-hopper-powers!!! If they ever learn to shop at the shopping malls, in long shopping lines for super-popular products, they'd super-hop the lines in front of us, and maul us at the malls!!!

    The Aussies would have very little choice, other than to devise a GMO to go on the counter-attack...

    MeThinks that such GMO should be called the "Thunder from Down Under, Super-Mall-Mauling, Shopper Hopper Stoppers"!!!

    Or maybe "Thunder from Down Under, Super-Mall-Mauling, Shopper Hopper Stopper Coppers" (Coppers with police powers).

    The evolutionary arms race would be ON!!! To fight back against these "coppers", the Shopper Hopper Gang would need...

    "Thunder from Down Under, Super-Mall-Mauling, Shopper Hopper Stopper Copper Stoppers"!!!

    The counter-counter measure then becomes a device used by the coppers, to chop them all to pieces!

    This, then, is known as the…
    "Thunder from Down Under, Super-Mall-Mauling, Shopper Hopper Stopper Copper Stopper Chopper"!!!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's OK to be white.

    Hate speech, straight up. /sarc

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There are limits to whiteness that I am willing to tolerate. Albinos are not ok.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Is white chocolate okay?

  • Sam Grove||

    White chocolate is not chocolate. The white stuff is what's left when all the chocolate is removed.
    Of course, there are those that like sweetened cocoa butter.

  • DenverJ||

    What about Poppy?

  • JesseAz||

    I prefer Branch to Poppy. More of a libertarian. Poppy was a communist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    White people are awful

    It is widely accepted.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sounds like a very interesting debate topic.

  • ||

    Yeah - this is an interesting and difficult one. We've been confronting this pretty directly in that we are white, we live in a very ethnically-mixed working-class neighborhood, and recently took our daughter out of the public school and put her into a very Progressive private school (long story, another time).

    We were talking recently about how in many ways it's a step back. We recently had parent-teacher conferences and three of the four lily-white teachers had BLM buttons on. The school on the whole is very white/Asian/Jewish but there's a "No Room for Hate" and a "Black Lives Matter" poster in every classroom window.

    We agreed that it never occurred to our daughter before to divide people up into racial groups - since she was in pre-school she's had friends of pretty much every race you can think of, and many years ago when we showed her a picture of a mixed-race crowd of kids and asked her to point to the one that most looked like her (she was about five), she pointed to a little Latina girl (she's actually blonde, blue-eyed, and very fair-skinned).

    BUT (and some of my reverse class-prejudices figure in here), the bourgie kids she's now going to school with don't come across Blacks and Latinos all that often. They do need to be reminded that "Black Lives Matter."

  • ||

    The frustrating thing is that they think they are at the forefront of improving race relations, when they are actually lagging behind. So the message is probably still important and necessary, but it's the people who most need to hear it who are shouting it the most loudly at everyone else.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    We recently had parent-teacher conferences and three of the four lily-white teachers had BLM buttons on. The school on the whole is very white/Asian/Jewish

    I'd be tempted to ask them "If you care so much about 'Black Lives' why don't you go teach in an urban inner city public school instead?" but I'd probably just have to bite my tongue out of fear that they may take their anger out on my daughter, grade wise.

  • ||

    Yeah - there are a lot of disconnects that cause some tongue-biting. My wife had another parent complaining to her the other day about the scourge of charter schools and how they're stealing resources from the public schools. But she has both her children in a private school.

    We're receiving financial assistance, because from their perspective we're poor, so I stay very quiet when climate change comes up (which can be hard - they took a trip recently to an "organic farm" that uses no fossil fuels; I sooo badly wanted to point that wood-burning is so, so, so much worse, but I didn't).

    These people Progressive so hard my daughter doesn't even get Veteran's Day off.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    These people Progressive so hard my daughter doesn't even get Veteran's Day off.

    To be fair, I grew up in a very red state and we never got that off either. In fact I didn't realize how awesome our schedule was until graduating and living other places; we only got the biggies off, none of the small 2nd tier holidays like veterans day, columbus day, presidents day, etc. Just thanksgiving, two weeks at christmas, and memorial day. In exchange we got more contiguous days off over summer. Easy peasy, but now I get cranky when things are closed for minor holidays.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " The school on the whole is very white/Asian/Jewish but there's a "No Room for Hate" and a "Black Lives Matter" poster in every classroom window. "

    Need some "It's OK to be White" posters next to the BLM ones

  • ||

    Actually, one big thing I do like about this school is that, yes, it's full-on SJW culture, but unlike the "teachers" in the public school they actually get it and are trying to go about it in good faith.

    For example, we have a "Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator" whose full-time job to do "diversity and inclusion stuff." So they'll do things like talk about gender identity and pronouns, and race-sensitive language, and all that stuff, but as a mixed-race lady she also has no truck with race essentialism or demonizing white people, and constantly emphasizes that the whole point of discussing these things is to not be dicks to one another.

    At the public schools they tend to miss that "don't be dicks to one another" aspect and just hate on straight white people.

  • Ecoli||

    I guess it is an old fashioned notion but propagandizing to elementary school kids just strikes me as evil. Read, write, and cypher. Throw in a healthy dose of science. Plenty of recess. Kickball. Seems like enough to me.

  • JesseAz||

    It's not the school's job to mold personalities. Full stop. They should stick to teaching actual facts, not group think. When you start splitting people by race, focusing on differences, airing out grievances... people become the dicks you say they are trying to stop. Enforce a policy of not being a dick in school and end it at that. Don't try to indoctrinate them about innate differences and then go on and claim that there are no innate differences in the sexes and such. It's confusing to children.

  • BigT||

    White's alright.

  • Eddy||

    Who got to pick the phrasing of the question?

    I mean, "the message of anti-racism" sounds great. Don't be racist, kids!

    I'd vote for the negative based just on the question's phrasing.

    Now, if you phrased the question something like "PC nonsense and political demagoguery in the name of 'anti-racism' is very harmful," then I'd be for the affirmative.

  • Eddy||

    To put it mildly, a norm against racism isn't something we can take for granted.

    The threat to that norm tends to come from the left, what with racial preferences, condescending and insulting talk about "white people," etc.

    Be a pity to obscure that point by making the affirmative debater (McWhorter?) denounce "the message of anti-racism."

  • lap83||

    "the message of anti-racism" sounds great.

    Hmm, yes, it does.... Ooh, I know! Let's use it to shut down debate and guilt all of the weak-minded voters into choosing our awful candidates!

  • Eddy||

    It's giving ground to the race-hustlers to pretend they're preaching a "message of anti-racism."

    It would be like conceding that they have a "pro-people message," which they also tend to claim.

  • Mr. JD||

    Racism is racism, regardless of direction.

  • Nardz||

    ^this

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's only racism when Whitey does it. My professor told be so."

  • JesseAz||

    Black Professor "I'm black I can't be racist, I don't have power"
    White Student "You could literally flunk me for no reason, call me racist, and get me in trouble with the school's diversity leads"
    Black Professor "Shut up racist whitey"

  • JesseAz||

    "Let's end the conflict between races by isolating the races from one each other in a race to ultimate victim-hood" - Modern leftists.

  • Jerryskids||

    Notice they didn't say "anti-racism", they said the message of anti-racism, an implicit acknowledgement that the two things are not the same. "Kill all the white people" is not anti-racist but it sure seems to be the message of a lot of anti-racists. If you define racism strictly as the way white people treat non-white people as perceived by non-white people, well, anti-racism has a much narrower focus than you might think. If you define racism a little more broadly, it becomes difficult to see much difference between racism and anti-racism beyond which race one is racist against.

  • DenverJ||

    Well said.

  • Nardz||

    "Anti-racism" is not "a-racism"
    Being "against" racism arguably, and especially in popular practice, requires a perspective that still positions race as the primary factor.
    Whereas a perspective "without" racism has, in the span of time since MLK's exhortation to view people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" (especially over the last decade), come to be regarded by those "against" racism as a racist perspective.
    Dave Chappelle might've presented the "a-racism" view best when he acknowledged that people are different, and it's best to laugh about those differences- laughing about those superficial differences is not to establish a hierarchy, but brings people together. I can say that this, at least, has been my extensive lived experience.

  • ||

    laughing about those superficial differences is not to establish a hierarchy, but brings people together.

    ^ This. Laughing about the differences together is saying "we're different, but that's okay." When you can't do that, and you just have to look at the other and say "oh, the Other - must put on serious face now," then the jokes about the differences happen in private, and are less friendly and apt to bring different groups together.

  • Nardz||

    Nothing is less conducive to harmony than discomfort.
    The encouragement of self-consciousness and insecurity is the most galling thing about "anti-racism"

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'd vote for the negative based just on the question's phrasing.

    I thought we weren't doing 'phrasing' anymore.

  • Ordinary Person||

    You're comparing the 'message of anti-racism" to all things racist and wondering which causes more harm.
    This isn't a fair fight.

  • Eddy||

    Yeah, if we throw out the baby with the bathwater and stop teaching that Racism is Wrong, people won't automatically gravitate to the anti-racism position.

    Apparently there's a song that "You Have To Be Carefully Taught" to be racist. Nonsense. It's virtue and acceptance which have to be taught - and taught with nuance, so you don't swallow every foolish idea under the label of "diversity."

    Original sin indicates that human beings are predisposed, among other impulses, to wrath, including wrath against Others.

    Of *course* there needs to be a message of anti-racism. An intelligent message. One day we may start widely teaching such a message.

  • ||

    Apparently there's a song that "You Have To Be Carefully Taught" to be racist. Nonsense.

    It's over-stated, but it's not total nonsense. There was a great documentary about 20 years ago called People of the Forest that followed a tribe of Chimpanzees for over a decade, studying their behavior and interactions.

    One of the most interesting scenes involved a young chimpanzee and a young baboon playing together. It didn't occur to them even slightly to be enemies. It lasted until the parents noticed. The parents flipped their shit - the mama baboon ran up and snatched little baboon away, and mama chimp did the same thing. Violence ensued, IIRC resulting in the death of one of the adult baboons.

    Prejudice does seem to be learned. But also pretty deeply ingrained.

  • Eddy||

    Hmmm...very interesting. Like an After-School Special gone wrong.

    Maybe I've been barking up the wrong tree.

  • Eddy||

    Wow, I've been reading the plot summaries of those ABC After-School Specials on Wikipedia. So depressing - no wonder the kids started watching anime instead.

  • ||

    On the upside, the chimps ate the baboon, so the lesson in tolerance was replaced by a lesson in nutrition and resource management.

  • lap83||

    Parents can teach their kids to be racist. That's why the state needs to indoctrinate those hillbilly little monkeys, I mean precious children, early

  • ||

    ^ This lady gets it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Chimpanzees do have a tendency to regard other primates as a source of protein. The baboon mother had cause to be worried..

  • ||

    The baboon mother had cause to be worried.

    Well - that's a good point. There may have been an experiential basis for their prejudices.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, I wont go there, won't go there...

  • DiegoF||

    I don't know who is whom in this analogy, but I know you just called blacks either baboons or chimpanzees. You're lucky this ain't Twitter, mister.

  • ||

    I really should have known better, shouldn't I?

    ~hangs head in shame~

  • Mr. JD||

    Teach the free market and you're done.

  • Ordinary Person||

    I think you should also cultivate the joy of empathy.

  • DiegoF||

    I would rather cultivate that of cooking or sex.

  • Cy||

    Right... People really have forgot what matters in life.

  • JesseAz||

    Racing to the front of the victim line isn't participating in empathy. Stop corrupting the language.

  • Here for the outrage||

    What's more empathetic than embracing mutual benefit? Fuck your feelings about literally everything else

  • Mr. JD||

    Racism can be learned, and it can be rational. If every time you encounter a member of a certain race, he punches you, what are you going to learn?

    But the notion that you must be taught to like other races is absurd. I grew up in a very white area, but I watched the Cosby Show, et al, and it never occurred to be to be racist. Then I moved to a mixed race area and had friends of mixed races. Only more recently, I live in another area with fewer non-white people, and here the identity politics results in a lot more bad experiences with people of other races. If I wasn't already a staunchly anti-racist person and was instead in my formative years, I can see these recent experiences teaching me to be racist, much like young members of the alt-right.

    The title question offends me by describing racism against white people as "anti-racism" - it's not anti-racism. It's just racism. And is it as harmful as racism BY white people? Of course not!

    It's much worse.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Exactly my experience.

  • ||

    Yeah - my wife and I were discussing this just the other day. She's taken Harvard's implicit bias survey a couple of times, and she came up as having a much stronger implicit bias against Black people when we lived in Oakland. Now that we live in a more mixed suburb where the underclass is actually the white-trash people who are being gentrified out, and we have a number of professional, middle-class black families, that implicit bias has largely vanished.

    We feel pretty certain that this is because when you're walking down the street in Oakland, particularly after dark, and you are a white person, and you come across young black males hanging out on the street, your odds of being harassed are quite high - you'll get shouted at across the street pretty reliably. High enough to create an implicit bias that is there even if you are able to overcome it in dealing with individuals.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Who is describing racism against white people as "anti-racism"?

  • Microaggressor||

    Don Lemon

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let me guess... you think Don Lemon said "all white men are terrorists", right?

  • JesseAz||

    ""So," he said, "we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them."

    Then he doubled down: ""I said that the biggest terror threat in this country comes from radicals on the far right, primarily white men. That angered some people. But let's put emotion aside and look at the cold hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming.""

    Stop demonizing people... but make sure to note that white people are terrorists.

    This is basically the same style of wording you and other leftists have claimed Trump called all Mexian's rapists and killers.

    So not sure what your objection is. Neither person used the word All, but neither did Microagressor claim Don Lemon said all.

    So are you constructing a strawman to strike down or just stupid?

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|11.9.18 @ 6:06PM|#
    "Who is describing racism against white people as "anti-racism"?"

    Anyone promoting affirmative action.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The entire Left

    The fundamental organizing principle of the modern Left is hatred of White Men, past, present, and future. They call it "anti racism".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Does that include white men like Bernie Sanders?

  • Nardz||

    Its about resentment.
    If you stoke resentment, progressivism classifies you as good.
    If you alleviate resentment, progressivism classifies you as evil.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    so does the "fundamental organizing principle of the modern Left" include hatred of Bernie Sanders? Yes or no? Last I checked, Bernie Sanders is a white man.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Bernie hates himself and all other white people, and people not in breadlines which he thinks are good.

    I never understood why white progressives don't kill themselves if they see evil every time they look in the mirror.

  • Nardz||

    Because while killing themselves would alleviate their self loathing, it would not satisfy their resentment- and resentment is their ruling principle

  • Ecoli||

    Sounds like you are saying, "one of my friends is white".

  • JesseAz||

    "But it was what Vermont senator said next that drew many people's ire on Twitter: "I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American.""

    Hint: Bernie is that vermont senator.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Progressives have made racial divisions so much worse in recent years. Barack Obama is one of the biggest offenders. When you get below the surface you find they really want revenge for ancestral grievances, not peace or equality.

    Today's democrat party is probably the single greatest obstacle to moving past racial divisions in the US. They just simply won't let the shit go.

  • Tony||

    Yes, some college kid overreacting to a Halloween costume is literally as bad or worse than 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and oppression.

  • Eddy||

    This rhetorical trick is fun, let's do more of it!

    -Democrats putting Harriet Tubman on the currency more than makes up for all the Democrats who killed, raped and beat enslaved people!

    -That nice socialist lady in the soup kitchen more than makes up for the millions killed by socialist starvation policies!

  • Tony||

    Dude, never go full loveconstitution.

  • Eddy||

    Osculate my hindquarters, varlet.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Whoa, easy there with the brony talk, Eddie.

  • Eddy||

    I wouldn't know if I independently developed similar speech patterns to Bronies.

    Apparently *you* know.

  • Ecoli||

    Awesome!!!

    Two words in a four word sentence that I had never seen before. And the comma was correctly placed.

    My sincere compliments.

    As a bonus "osculate" has a mathematical meaning as well.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The commies don't want you to love the constitution
    I'm so shocked

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The truth hurts Lefties like Tony and their agenda.

    More and more Americans are leaving the Democratic Party.

  • Tony||

    I feel like you deserve a retard class special star for using Democratic as an adjective. Now run along and stop pretending like you know how to run a country.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony and his Democrat Lefties losing more and more every day.

    I cant wait for RBG to be replaced by Trump. Great day that will be.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, you're dumb. so just stop, please. LC has easily ten times your brain power. As do most people here.

  • Jerryskids||

    It certainly is for anybody alive today. Maybe you know some lich that's endured 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and oppression, but there can't possibly that damn many of them wandering around. IANAL, but I don't think the "sins of the father" doctrine is widely accepted in our legal system.

  • ||

    Yes, some college kid overreacting to a Halloween costume is literally as bad or worse than 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and oppression.

    You haven't the foggiest idea what they're actually debating, do you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Tony's been such a little Grumpasaurus after the midterms. For a guy basking in all that #Winning, something sure isn't sitting right.

  • Sevo||

    It's been enjoyable laughing at him every since 11/16, the lying shitbag.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    It is almost worth having Trump win just to enjoy the Tony Tears....and the proggie tears from all my proggie lawyer school friends.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Things that hurt progtards are generally good for the rest of us.

  • Cy||

    He's used to thinking being a semi-loser makes him a 'winner.' Deep down, he knows the truth.

  • Seamus||

    Tony's planning on getting the last laugh after Dems in Arizona, Florida, and Georgia all reenact Landslide Lyndon Johnson's trick of finding just enough overlooked ballots to put them over the top.

  • DenverJ||

    Except slavery, Jim Crow institutionalized caste systems, and oppression haven't existed for 400 years, Tony, they've existed for the entirity of mankind, and probably predate the evolution of homo erectus. To pretend that white Europeans invented these sins, or even are the worst offenders, is nonsense. Why not just blame all the sins of humanity on one innocent child, and keep that child in misery for its whole life?*
    * (Was that Lovecraft?)

  • Nardz||

    Save me, baby Jesus!

  • Tony||

    All that's requires is that you not contribute to the problem.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You contribute to the problem every day. Your a bigot. You see that, don't you?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If he could see his mistakes, he wouldn't make them.

    And no, you don't get to enlighten him. He doesn't trust you. You've done nothing to earn it. So, he keeps making mistakes, and people keep being annoyed by his mistakes with no means to correct his mistakes, because trust and community and empathy aren't just silly libtard concepts - they're our motivation to subsume our own narrative in favor of another's.

    If you want him to see his mistakes through your eyes, you have to convince him to trust your eyes.

    Go ahead, call him names. See if that helps. I'm betting it won't. Exactly as me saying this is pretty certain to annoy you; not change you. I'm not someone you'd trust enough to listen to.

    I'm sorry. I wish being right meant more in reality, except being right is rarely enough. We have to be right, to the right people, to whom we've done the right work that they can hear us. TANSTAAFL. Everything has a cost; even being heard.

  • lap83||

    "The word 'racism' is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything...and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist'"
    - Thomas Sowell

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You can't put ketchup on steak, you phillistine.

  • Eddy||

    Philistine? They're the ancestors of the Palestinians.

    You Racist!

    Justice For Palestine! Down with the...uh, I mean down with Israel!

  • lap83||

    The worst are the people who put it on eggs. That is just sick.

  • DiegoF||

    I hate ketchup but that doesn't seem unreasonable at all, certainly not compared to steak. Nothing whatsoever should go on steak. Except butter if you are eating tenderloin. Which you should not.

  • lap83||

    I don't know why, it just makes me retch. Ketchup on steak is obviously done by someone who doesn't appreciate good food, but it doesn't give me a physical reaction.

  • DenverJ||

    'Cause eggs are gross?

  • Jerryskids||

    Not even if the steak is extra-well-done?

  • DaveSs||

    If a steak is well done it ceases to be fit for eating, regardless of what you slather it with.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    No, you can't put ketchup on beef jerky either.

  • Sevo||

    "Not even if the steak is extra-well-done?"

    That's not a steak, it's shoe repair material.

  • DiegoF||

    Sevo's grandkids make dinner. Pretty spacious pad, but this was when California rents were more reasonable.

  • Sevo||

    And tasty is was, with ketchup!

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    My dad put ketchup on spaghetti with tomato sauce...

  • Ordinary Person||

    That's a jaded view. The white racists I've encountered are often deliberately coy in their presentation so that they claim victimhood when confronted.

  • Eddy||

    "She denies it! That proves she's a witch!"

  • lap83||

    Good for you, coy racists are the most dangerous and should be vociferously condemned whenever possible

  • BigT||

    The soft racism of low expectations. And paternalistic policies. See: Democrats, Socialists

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah that is my take as well. They tend to tiptoe all around a racist justification for their view, and if anyone says "that sounds a little racist", they immediately yell STOP CALLING ME RACIST

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Problem is that the anti-racists are, at least in part, giving them room to do it by calling everybody who disagrees with them racist.

  • Nardz||

    "If they don't agree with me, they're just a coy racist"
    And those people think they should be taken seriously

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "If they don't agree with me, they're just a coy racist"

    No, Nardz. It's more like:

    "I'm going to make an argument that really strongly suggests that certain classes of people are inferior based on superficial attributes like skin color, and when I'm called out on the very logical inference of racism, I'm going to play the role of a victim and scream and yell about how unfair it is that I'm being called a racist based on my logically inferred bigoted views"

  • Nardz||

    Assuming racist motives is itself racism.
    YOU are proposing that race is the primary factor, hence YOU are prioritizing race.
    Race is forefront in your perspective, thus you assume it to be forefront in every other perspective you encounter - especially those that disagree with you, as you can then displace the primacy of race in your own perception onto them and vilify its (externalized) appearance.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh give me a break.
    When many people in the anti-immigration crowd keep screaming about "those people", they aren't talking about blond haired blue eyed Scandinavian immigrants. Can we stop pretending that the same people who are now screaming "invasion! invasion!" would be screaming the same thing if it was a caravan of Canadian migrants headed for the border?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Who is more likely to "vote for socialism"?
    The Canadian immigrant who graduated from the University of Toronto with a degree in women's studies?
    Or the illiterate Guatemalan immigrant working in the fields?

    Which immigrant does the restrictionist right spend all their time freaking out about?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Which is the bigger source of illegal immigration - people who cross the border illegally? Or people who overstay their visas?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/la.....ue-n730216

    Which class of illegal immigrants does the restrictionist right freak out the most over? And why do you think that is?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Who consumes more welfare - illegal immigrants? Or native-born citizens *of the same income level*?

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio.....-use-rates

    Which class of welfare leeches does the restrictionist right freak out the most over? And why do you think that is?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Good gravy, am I gonna get it. *girds loins*

    Who gets prosecuted more for marijuana offenses, despite similar usage rates - blacks or whites?

    Who makes up a larger share of the incarcerated population than their share of the "we'll let them roam and just tax them if they move or breathe" population - blacks or whites?

    And do these things happen due to teh systemic racisms?

    I suspect they do not, the caterwauling of BLM notwithstanding. Black people are not incarcerated at a higher percentage of their general population demographic split due to some inherent genetic flaw toward criminality, nor because black cops are racist against black men.

    Jeff, your examples have more than race in common. Vulnerability is also a factor.

    Theory: When faced with insurmountable problems, humans seek to render them malleable.* When a parasitic ruling class siphons off ever-increasing taxes, what shall people do: get pissy about Elon Musk, millions in tax credits for Hollywood, one of the most expensive failing education systems money can buy... or start looking a few rungs down the ladder for something they might actually be able to affect in their pay grade.

    I ask you.

    Is it right? Who cares. The brain doesn't seem to work that way, mate. Does it make sense? Ah, that's more like it.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Humans can make anything make sense. Confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger, Gell-Mann amnesia, backfire effect; we're fucking built to make anything make sense. Super awesome, from a biological perspective. It makes us more than the sum of our parts. It allows us - naked, squishy apes and really pathetic predators - to become the apex planetary species and achieve intelligence. We can make anything make sense, and we've got the appendages to pull our crazycakes ideas off.

    Aaand it also lets us decide that fixed fortifications, protectionist markets, and centrally-planned meddling will work out fine this time, 'coz it's totes different now and things would turn right around like THAT *snaps fingers* ... if only the workers produced by the greatest economy mankind has ever had didn't have to compete with illiterate third-world peasants who only want welfare.

    Making things make sense is a talent of humanity. That is makes sense doesn't mean we're right, though. Sometimes we're just too clever for our own good. As Twain said and Reagan yoinked, "It ain't what we know that causes half the trouble, it's what we know that just ain't so."

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Humans don't appear to seek out root causes unless cornered like a rat in a trap. We find a cause that's in our pay grade, and try to solve that instead.

    No, this doesn't really work, and yes, Musk and Hollywood and banks cost us way, way more, except there's little most people can do to rein in Elon Musk. Hell, his own board can't keep him in check, what the hell can some rando do about their personal $323.87 of productivity that was redistributed to a billionaire with D.C. on speed-dial.

    People solve what's in their range. Humanity prospered not by taming the mountain's storms, but by building better roofs. If they can do nothing about politicians stealing mass amounts of productivity and an economy that works as poor engine but an excellent siphon, then they will focus on making sure no Guatemalan housewife competes with them for a job. Or that no one anywhere is having unapproved recreation, thinking bad thoughts, making unacceptable jokes, installing water heaters without a permit et cetera. We appear to solve what's in our range - or try to.

    It's not racism, Jeff. At least, I suspect there's another explanation that works as well. Vulnerability. People are aiming for causes they think they can affect - things and people a few rungs lower down the ladder.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Like, I'm almost persuaded that honor societies evolved specifically to correct this human tendency to take problems generated top-down and solve them bottom-up. It makes sense - which is precisely why I'm not sure I trust it, haha.

    *It's quite adorbs, and works ridiculously well in scientific endeavors. People ask me how I do complex math in my head, and I tell them the truth: I don't. I figure out how to break complex math down into easy math and do THAT. 17% of $357? Oh, easy-peasy, it's 10% + 5% + 1% + 1%, or 35.70 and 17.85 and 7.14. It's $60.69. Humans don't seem to be widely good at complex, except we can be amazing at rendering the complex into the manageable; and what fool can't find 10% and then halve it?**

    ** That was rhetorical. Shush.

  • Nardz||

    In conjunction with your point about vulnerability, goes visibility.
    Its probably the main reason blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than whites of a similar socioeconomic strata.
    In addition to many illegal immigrants I worked with at my old job, there were 2 guys - stevie and David- who were best friends. Stevie was a black guy from the hood and David was a white guy from the trailer park.
    There experiences were remarkably similar.
    The same stuff that goes on in the hood is what goes on in trailer parks, but there's a key difference why arrests are more common in the former than the latter: visibility.
    Hoods are located in large population centers with high density. Trailer parks tend to be out in the boonies. So while you may have the exact same behaviors in both, one is amidst lots of people (and police) while the other occurs out of sight (of people and police).
    It's an urban prejudice at play here more than anything else.

  • Nardz||

    The question of illegal immigration and border crossers vs visa overstayers is similar.
    We can see people crossing the border illegally, especially in large groups, and gather in large communities together.
    We can't watch someone overstay a visa, and it's done as an individual rather than as a group. I don't know of any neighborhoods composed of visa overstayers but I can recall a bunch of them composed of border crossers.
    Additionally, there's the fact that a visa overstayer was at some, even minimum, level vetted before coming while a border crosser is a complete unknown.
    And if we are to address the problem at all - which, I understand, open borders folks like chemjeff find objectionable - securing the border against illegal entry, rather than searching out illegal residence - is a logical place to start.
    Don't assume racism, especially when far more obvious and fundamental factors are present

  • Hamster of Doom||

    And if we are to address the problem at all - which, I understand, open borders folks like chemjeff find objectionable - securing the border against illegal entry, rather than searching out illegal residence - is a logical place to start.

    Nardz, let's make sure we understand each other here. Communication is key.

    Do racists exist? Oh, yes. I'm with Jeff on that score; they exist, and they often hide behind "I'm JUST sayin.." and they're flaming idiots. I've met them. Never count me among those people who think we've solved all those "old problems" of racism, sexism, and power dysfunction in this wonderful enlightened exceptional America. *rolls eyes forever*

    Jeff hasn't responded, which in old commentariat parlance is code for him conceding the argument, except I'm not content with that. I didn't want to win by defeat or concession. Zero-sum games are boring. I wanted him to see a new way of thinking about an old problem. And I don't think it worked; I suspect he merely concedes that he doesn't have a good way to argue me down.

    That's a bad outcome, in my view. I lost. It didn't matter if I made sense to you; I lost Jeff, which means I lost. I wrote a bunch of words that meant nothing in the end, changed nothing. Futility, how does it work.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I'm one of those open-borders NPCs. Does it change your thinking at all to realize this, Nardz? Let me explain. No, let me make words, since explanations are bullshit; our friends don't need an explanation, and our enemies won't listen anyway.

    I don't believe in laws, or dichotomies, or political parties. They've had their chance and they fail at every opportunity. I believe in markets. Open the borders. Let people have their say where they shall live and work and invest. Expose governments to the power of the free market. C'mon, it'll be fun. And those politicians who want to hand out freebies like parade marshalls throwing candy? Wellll, that works right up until it doesn't, and then we get tired of paying for their candy-tossing freebies and move, and then they have to think of a better idea.

    If Nike can't make a profit from a factory in Nebraska, they move the factory to a place where it will make a profit. And here's my radical assessment: That is okay. That is, in fact, a great solution. Now let's open it up to everyone. Globalization of the market gave us fresh produce in January, cheap market goods. It's also been optimized to work for Top Men, and we hate globalization because it works for Top Men and not us. I suspect we should embrace it, and make sure we get the maximum benefit from it, just as the big corps do. And that means being willing and able to pick up and move.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I want to be able to move to Bulgaria just the same as I might move to Michigan. Will it be what I am used to? Fuck no, any more than Michigan is what I'm used to. Weirdos with their Uppers and their lake effect Fimbulwinters and their Canadian vacations... but I could. No one tells me I can't. So why not Bulgaria, or Colombia, or where the fuck ever. Oh, well, they have politicians who have particulars, and we all totes respect the needs of the ruling class around here eh right? *pttthb*

    Let competition reign. If I cannot compete with a Guatemalan housewife, then this is a lesson for me; not an opportunity for a politician to help me out of this fix.

    To some, this makes me an NPC. I'm used to this. I'be been saying for years that people act as if I'm not an actual person, just a pixelated computer program that stubbornly refuses to side with them on their personal narrative fulfillment. I want people to entertain the thought that I might disagree with them, and that this is okay. I'm still a person. So are they. And we can figure this out together. Everyone makes mistakes; you, me, them... humans are flawed creatures. Our potential is incredible, and yet we need perspective to get comprehensive solutions that work.

  • Jerry B.||

    All Mr. Singh has to do is call Mr. McWorter a racist, and he wins the debate.

  • ||

    My former boss, owner of the company I worked for, named Mr. Singh, always found it hilarious that here North Indians are considered "People of Color."

  • DiegoF||

    McWhorter can decisively rebut by deporting his ass. Ultimate pwn.

  • Eddy||

    He'd have to say "Uncle Tom" or "Republican" or some such.

  • mtrueman||

    America stumbled along for hundreds of years with only one type of racism. Now there are two, normal racism and new improved 'racism against white people.' aka anti-racism. Your choice.

  • Trigger Warning||

    As harmful? Probably not. But it's fucking annoying.

  • DiegoF||

    When "the message of anti-racism" brings with it things like its own form of racial tribalism itself, or changing attitudes toward free speech, it becomes actively harmful. We should be sure to keep the focus on that, that it's these things we object to, so it doesn't look like we're being petty or ridiculous.

  • Nardz||

    ^this, Diego

    I don't object to racism directed against whites any more or any less than racism directed against blacks, or anybody else.

    I object to the prioritization of race as motivation, argument, and classification.

    The fundamental assumption of racism is racist.
    Full stop

  • Rich||

    The message of anti-racism

    I have no idea what that is. Does that make me a racist?

  • Eddy||

    No, it's being on H&R in the first place that makes you a racist.

  • DiegoF||

    HnR is too obscure to have been labelled alt-right by anyone. Sometimes it hurts my feelings.

  • ||

    I linked to Reason on NextDoor.com once and had a neighbor inform me that they are alt-right and funded by the Koch Brothers, if that helps.

    ~pats Diego's shoulder~

  • Rob Misek||

    Confused yet? Does there seem no end to the conflict?

    You're arguing ambiguous points.

    Express hatred unambiguously.

    You'll find it is based on a lie. Stop lying and all hatred goes away.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Left Always Projects
    When they say they're Anti Racism, they mean they Hate Whitey

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    In your view, is it possible to be genuinely anti-racist?

  • mtrueman||

    In his view being called on his racist views makes him a victim. Trampling on his sacred rights to free speech etc...

  • Eddy||

    "In your view, is it possible to be genuinely anti-racist?"

    I don't know whom you're criticizing, but I'll venture a response.

    Since plenty of people have succeeded in being anti-racist, I conclude logically that it's possible.

    Going from a country where most black people were property to a country where even a fairly mediocre black politician could get elected twice to the presidency...that didn't happen by people twiddling their thumbs and saying "gosh, I wonder if the racial situation will improve"?

    Logically, *someone* must have been out there being anti-racist, and if you check history that suspicion will be confirmed.

  • Eddy||

    Being cynical, I tend to think that solving one problem tends to create others, but even I am impressed at the number of problems surmounted by courageous people who decided that a racist country isn't what America ought to be.

    There are still, of course, plenty of problems of all kinds, but modern-day civil-rights LARPers haven't yet realized that new approaches are needed for new problems.

  • Nardz||

    If one wants to truly eliminate or minimize racism, rather than being merely racist in other directions, the first requirement is that we get rid of race-consciousness as a decisive factor.
    Otherwise, "anti-racism" is merely redirected and disguised racism

  • DiegoF||

    It's an Oxford-style debate, meaning the audience is polled before and after discussion and the winner is the person who moves the most people toward his or her position.

    If the pre- and post-debate polling is all there is to uniquely characterize an "Oxford-Style debate," it strikes me as more naturally viewed as a quirky historical tradition of the Oxford Political Union than as something with cause to be reified as a "style" and simulated in what is really just a panel discussion. Doesn't seem to be much point to be speaking in "motions before this house," when your "house" is not a bunch of posh English teens in suits staging practice simulations for their careers in politics, but a bunch of Manhattan yuppies buying tickets to watch a journalists' on-stage discussion on EventBrite.

  • DiegoF||

    *club of posh English teens

  • sarcasmic||

    Who keeps to themselves the most, racists or anti-racists? Who stirs the pot the most, racists or anti-racists?

    Which is more harmful to a peaceful society, keeping to one's self or stirring the pot?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would any black person be associated with the Democratic Party- the Party of slavery, Jim Crowe, and segregation?

  • DiegoF||

    Also the party of the Black Crowes, if everything you say weren't bad enough.

  • Eddy||

    Even when these "anti-racism" guys hit on a legitimate topic, they screw it up.

    Police abuse is certainly a problem, and it affects black people a lot. Though if you've seen some of the cases involving abuse of white people, you'd think the problem may be a bit bigger than whites using the police to pick on black people. And of course with no shortage of actual abuses, the retards often pick the most borderline cases.

  • sarcasmic||

    Police abuse poor people. Poor blacks quite often live in concentrated communities. Projects and such. There's lots of abuse because they're lots of people to abuse, it's more likely to be seen because of the concentrated population, and the people are more likely to know each other. Compare that to poor whites in the burbs who ignore their neighbors. They're on the receiving end of all kinds of police injustice too. Nobody gives a shit about them.

    I don't know how many times I've heard the phrase "Because I'm black" in response to not getting a job or some other form of rejection, getting arrested or into some other trouble, a shitty report card or some other crappy achievement, whatever. So much self pity floating around in the black community, and so many "anti-racists" feeding it. People who encourage blacks to pick themselves up by the bootstraps are accused of racism for asking them to "act white."

    So who's stirring up the most trouble? I say the "anti-racists" who discourage responsibility and encourage dependence.

    Then again I sometimes wonder if the people wearing the mantle of anti-racist are the racists. Maybe they have good intentions, but we all know where that leads.

  • Eddy||

    To be fair, the history of white supremacism, and shocking abuse, is a very long one. We're still suffering from a bit of disorientation, historically speaking, at the rapid pace at which we've improved.

    I read a book from the 1950s called *Clever Introductions for Chairmen* which was supposed to be a collection of humorous stories by which the chair of meetings of Important People could warm up the audience with a little humor. And some of the "humorous" stories were Blanche Knott level racist stuff. But the book's audience was movers and shakers, businessmen and such, who were supposed to be warmed up before the main speaker - with some nice racist humor.

    It's not that these jokes have disappeared, but that they're known to be super-edgy, best avoided in the presence of anyone who affects your employment. Probably best avoided in front of your black supervisor.

    The fact that we've suddenly had this spurt of moral progress is hard to process, especially with all the problems which continue to exist. Adapting to a new set of problems, which aren't addressed by civil-rights LARPing, is tough - and LARPing is easy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why is it hard to process? Where are those 1950's businessmen? I'll tell you where they are. They're underground. Literally.

    Anyone who suffers from that is creating their own suffering, because the men who told those jokes and laughed at those jokes are dead.

    So I guess we're in agreement. Pretending to be MLK and fighting a racist boogeyman who simply doesn't exist anymore isn't going to solve a damn thing.

  • Eddy||

    I'm not saying it's an adaptive response, but countries and peoples tend to have long historical memories, and there's a comfort level in "fighting the last war," even with different circumstances.

    It's like the joke about how the Egyptian Army lost to Israel in 1967 - they followed the advice of their Russian advisers, retreated, and waited for winter. Not a good adaptation to circumstances.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is this notion that government abolished slavery. That government ended Jim Crow.

    Government stopped enforcing slavery. Government stopped enforcing Jim Crow.

    It's like saying a man who stops beating his wife suddenly becomes a hero. No, he's just an asshole who doesn't beat his wife anymore.

  • Eddy||

    ...and the same governments which used to do that kind of stuff have apparently suddenly grown trustworthy enough to restructure society, and despite the presence of Systemic Racism everywhere, that won't infect the doings of the government, which will proceed rationally and systematically to Do Good Things.

    And when the government does Bad Things, that's a personnel problem, or a question of not clapping hard enough or not being woke enough, or what have you. It doesn't mean you can't trust the government in principle.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm watching Free State of Jones right now on Netflix.

    Check it out if you haven't seen it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Government is nothing more than a gang of men who use violence without consequence. Asking men like that to proactively solve problems will always result in oppression. It's the road to serfdom.

  • Sevo||

    Eddy|11.9.18 @ 10:29PM|#
    "I'm not saying it's an adaptive response, but countries and peoples tend to have long historical memories, and there's a comfort level in "fighting the last war," even with different circumstances."

    OK, but I think there is, and should be an 'American Exceptionalism': We are not going to continue fighting the Vietnamese, the North Korean (people, not the Kims), the Germans, the Japanese, et al. As a culture, we do (and should) put it aside; there is a future we can enjoy.
    But the last example is important: If any racial group had an argument, it is the west coast Japs, jammed in concentration camps by Earl Warren and FDR. Living in SF, I have an acquaintance with a story which can't be other than amusing, since he is so free of rancor:
    Guy born here of Japanese farmer parents, early '40s; they are 'encamped' (farms stolen) and then deported to Japan after WWII; he speaks no Japanese. At the beginning of the Korean war, he is 'drafted' in Japan, since he is a US citizen (born in the Us). Volunteers for Airborne, sent south and can't find a place to pee, since he isn't black or white.
    BTW, he becomes a successful business guy in SF...
    There is a lesson here: put it away. We, as US citizens, no longer hold a grudge regarding the Alamo, nor which group threatened my family in the 18th century.
    Put it away

  • Hamster of Doom||

    No.

    Sevo, I like you. Hell, I have authoritarian paternalistic relatives I like less than I like you. And yet, I say again, no.

    Fuck that noise.

    Humans need to learn from their mistakes. Their victims don't need to let it go; people need to learn from their mistakes.

    No such thing as a free lunch.

    Have you ever read anything by Dr Hildegard Messenbaugh? Holocaust survivor. She has this radical theory that people don't need to let it go when society goes mad and inflicts massive trauma on the vulnerable; the vulnerable need to be given a resolution, at which point letting it go becomes a natural thing.

    I mean, perhaps I've misunderstood you here, and if so then please do clarify, and yet I'm certain that resolution is far preferable to resignation.

  • Sevo||

    Eddy|11.9.18 @ 10:18PM|#
    "To be fair, the history of white supremacism, and shocking abuse, is a very long one. We're still suffering from a bit of disorientation, historically speaking, at the rapid pace at which we've improved."
    Pace Sowell and Murray, I would argue we are suffering less from a rapid pace of improvement as opposed to a rapid pace of introducing perverse incentives.

    "I read a book from the 1950s called *Clever Introductions for Chairmen* which was supposed to be a collection of humorous stories by which the chair of meetings of Important People could warm up the audience with a little humor. And some of the "humorous" stories were Blanche Knott level racist stuff. But the book's audience was movers and shakers, [], who were supposed to be warmed up before the main speaker - with some nice racist humor.
    It's not that these jokes have disappeared, but that they're known to be super-edgy, best avoided in the presence of anyone who affects your employment. Probably best avoided in front of your black supervisor."
    Or simply accepted as the relics of a different time.

    "The fact that we've suddenly had this spurt of moral progress is hard to process, especially with all the problems which continue to exist. Adapting to a new set of problems, which aren't addressed by civil-rights LARPing, is tough - and LARPing is easy."
    Old fart; what is LARPing?
    Eddy, since Reason won't give the the chance to edit this, I'll post it and then get to your later comments

  • Eddy||

    Behold the glories of Live Action Role-Playing

    (In my example, I'm saying they're LARPing Selma 1965 or some such)

  • Nardz||

    Good point, sarcasmic

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    :-(

  • PCGUY||

    I'm told I have white male privilege. Does that make me racist or anti-racist and is there a cure?

  • Tony||

    Neither. Just enjoy your privilege and don't be a cunt. Why so many people find this taxing is a mystery.

  • TuIpa||

    You seem to have quite a bit of trouble with it.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Just enjoy your privilege

    Til Tony's team wins enough elections to put you in the gas chambers

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    Is ant racism really that much of a problem?

  • Eddy||

  • Eddy||

    Oh, I missed this part:

    "Cash bar opens at 5:45pm

    "Event starts at 6:30pm"

    If I watch the video, I'll go straight to the audience questions.

  • Eddy||

  • Rob Misek||

    We have established racism in the language of our culture.

    Our public policies employ active racism.

    What's with the hand wringing? What did you expect?

    Nigger is a racist word. It's definion is also racist. It is defined as the most offensive word when whitey says it and the most friendly greeting between niggahs.

    Affirmative action is a public policy that ignores performance and denies white men's rights to an equal opportunity for employment. Everyone that supports or benefits from it is racist.

  • BigT||

    On npr Wednesday morning after the election, the lead story about the election was how many women ran and won. The second part was how many colorful people ran and won.

    Almost nothing was mentioned about policy or promises.

    This is how leftists divide the country and reinforce people's prejudices. And yet they smugly congratulate themselves for this in the name of diversity or inclusion. No self-awareness.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    My suggestion for a debate: Who's track record at predicting outcomes is better? The racists or the economists?

  • Ecoli||

    Is it OK to be white?

  • Rob Misek||

    White men are needed for all the racists to blame for their lousy lives.

    I never owned any slaves, fuck off.

    I work harder than you, fuck off.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Which is more important, the racism is eradicated from everywhere in the world, or people throughout the world are allowed free speech? You can't have both.

  • Rob Misek||

    The real racists want neither.

    They use their bigotry as a means to achieve narcissistic ends and political correctness to keep it out of the dialogue.

    But, by valuing virtue, we can have both. Empower all free speech everywhere, but as in court and contracts already, criminalize lying.

    There is no hatred that is not based on a lie.

    What speech could anyone need to hear from a liar?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The point is that you can't simultaneously ban free speech and racism. I value freedom of speech more than I value the freedom to not be offended (which isn't a right at all by the way). Allow maximum freedom everywhere, freedom of speech to call racism what it is, freedom of association for private industry to fire racists if they want to, etc, and racism will become irrelevant. Let the free market and private individuals punish racists. That's much preferred to using government force to punish something that is nearly impossible to strictly define.

    Criminalizing lying is ridiculous. By the way it's not criminal now, you need to show damage for libel and slander, for instance. As far as I know it's not criminal, not should it be. It's a tort, at best, if you can prove damage.

  • Rob Misek||

    Don't you value the court decision based on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Do you not take comfort in the contract that precludes lying?

    The proof of damages is not required for either.

    Can you even imagine if it was?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    LOL.

    Rob thinks people tell the truth when testifying or face stern penalties.

    Oh, Rob. My sweet summer child.

  • Ecoli||

    Is it OK to judge people by the content of their character?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    So racist.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online