Judge James Ho Defends Ilya Shapiro and Color Blindness at GULC

"And so, if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too."

On Tuesday, Judge James Ho was scheduled to speak to the Georgetown Federalist Society Chapter about fair-weather originalism. But in light of recent events, Ho decided to talk about another topic: Ilya Shapiro, cancel culture, and color blindness. National Review wrote about Ho's remarks, which a Georgetown student kindly shared with me. Here, I will offer a few highlights.

First, Ho vigorously defends the freedom of speech, not just on constitutional grounds, but on pragmatic grounds. The best way of knowing your own position is to confront those who disagree with you.

So cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture and our American culture.  It's completely antithetical to the very legal system that each of you seeks to join. . . .

If you disagree with Ilya Shapiro—if you think his understanding of the law is absurd—if you think his vision for our country is awful—here's what I say:  Bring him onto campus—and beat him!

Second, Ho explains that the people lobbing charges of racial discrimination are often the very people who are engaging in racial discrimination. Ilya, who advocates for color-blindness and equality, vigorously opposed racial discrimination.

So make no mistake:  If there is any racial discrimination in statements like these, it's not coming from the speaker—it's coming from the policy that the speaker is criticizing. That's the unfortunate irony in this whole discussion.  If you asked Ilya, I am sure he would say that he's the one standing up for racial equality, and that his opponents are the ones who are supporting racial discrimination.  You don't have to agree with him—but it's obvious that's where he's coming from.  And yet I don't hear Ilya trying to punish others for taking a different view on racial equality.

Third, Ho lines up with Shapiro. If Ilya gets cancelled, so should Ho.

Ilya has said that he should have chosen different words.  That ought to be enough. . . . I stand with Ilya on the paramount importance of color-blindness.  And that same principle should apply whether we're talking about getting into college, getting your first job, or receiving an appointment to the highest court in the land. Racism is a scourge that America has not yet fully extinguished—and the first step in fighting racial discrimination is to stop practicing it. That's all Ilya is trying to say.  That's all he has ever tried to say. And so, if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too.

I understand that Ho's remarks will be published. They warrant a careful read.

Comments

[JD85]

The idea that you should invite people who say something you disagree with so that they can debate you requires a level of belief in the authenticity of the speaker. There is no way to "beat" certain views. As an example, you cannot beat a holocaust denier in an argument. It isn't possible. They will maintain that every source you bring to them is a lie, and nothing you say will matter.

To quote Sartre:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It is still worth debating those irrational people, to get their closed minds and false evidence on record. Too many people let the liars spout their nonsense with no rebuttal, making the uninformed public think they must have a standard universal opinion if no one argues otherwise.

[apedad]

Debate irrational people?!?

What's there to debate?

You think holocaust deniers want to debate their position?!?

And the key word is 'irrational.'

There's people who believe the moon landings were fake, that Obama wasn't born in HI, and that Trump's election was stolen from him.

There's been plenty of push back on those views without having to actually debate 'irrational' people.

[DaivdBehar]

Zero tolerance for woke. Woke is a denial of reality. Cancel all woke. De-privilege, de-fund, de-accredit all woke schools. Start with those treason indoctrination camps, Harvard and Yale. They are producing the failed elite ruining our nation.

[DaivdBehar]

Did you ever talk to any of their alums. They are bookworms who don't know anything, yet are filled with self confidence. Not a good combination.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's very convenient to take people who disagree with you, (Even if they comprise a large fraction, perhaps a plurality of the population!) and cast them into the outer darkness, where you don't have to deal with them. Really, all you have to do is decide they're irrational or evil, and suddenly you're spared the burden of addressing anything they have to say.

I guess that even works, if they are very few in number, (As are actual Holocaust deniers.) or you've managed to create a comprehensive system of censorship.

But people who live in a bubble can think they've managed the latter, and only be fooling themselves. And be quite surprised when they find they're losing the argument because they didn't think they had to engage in it.

It's kind of funny, actually: The advocates of perpetual racial discrimination think they're prevailing, because they've taken over some critical institutions, and constructed a nice tight bubble, but then they try to repeal a ban on affirmative action in California!, and get crushed. In California.

Can you imagine how unpopular racial discrimination is across the nation, if the voters reject it in California?

The nation is ready to end racial discrimination, finally, and the only obstacle is the people who claim to be racial discrimination's worst foe. Reality can be so stupid sometimes.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't necessarily debate people you disagree with so that you can change their minds. That's a nice outcome, but not the real goal.

1) You do it to risk changing your own mind. Sure, you presently think you're right, but maybe you're wrong about that, and would change YOUR mind if confronted with the arguments by somebody who didn't already agree with you.

2) You do it to persuade the audience, who just might think that, if you refuse to debate somebody, it's not because they aren't worth debating, it's because you don't think you have the better argument.

3) You do it to sharpen your own arguments. Unless you confront the arguments used by a person who actually holds a position, you really don't know that your own counter-arguments actually counter what they'd really say. You may have constructed counter-arguments against an imaginary opponent who is conveniently easy to prove wrong, but which utterly fail to respond to the real arguments that such a person would advance.

"If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

A highly ironic passage to quote, when you're claiming that it isn't worth arguing with somebody. Don't you think?

[Kristian H.]

Nicwly put. And, I think odd, that readers of a blog on law, including practicing lawyers and law profs, might not get that acrtually having the trial (heh) might be worth it. It's like we are in the modern criminal law with 95% cvonviction and plea bargins to AVOID the trial.

Cancel culture is a form of the the criminal law over charge & plea bargin culture. Coercion to short circuit discovery and judgement.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, I had not thought of coercive plea bargaining as a form of cancel culture. Thanks for that thought!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Cancel culture is a form of the the criminal law over charge & plea bargin culture.

Good grief.

[DaivdBehar]

Popular Mechanics ran an article rebutting the 9/11 Truthers, point by point. It is now a reference for all who disagree with 9/11 Truthers. Avoids a lot of debate, which is now settled.

[KenveeB]

" They will maintain that every source you bring to them is a lie, and nothing you say will matter. "

"Beating" someone doesn't mean convincing them you're right. It means convincing everyone else. I would say it doesn't take very much to beat a holocaust denier, because their statements are easy to refute. It's not about getting them to say they were wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actual Holocaust denial is so rare these days, that most of the time when somebody is called a Holocaust "denier", you'll find that they're merely quibbling about some detail, maybe pointing out that it wasn't just Jews who were being killed, or something of that nature.

[Ben of Houston]

Mostly, but I have encountered not only genuine holocaust deniers but Flat-Earthers in the wild. They do exist.

Quietly refuting some of their most outlandish claims does work fairly well, especially in public forums where people are observing.

[Brett Bellmore]

My impression is that most Flat-Earthers are just having fun trolling people. That it's little more than a rather involved joke that just takes in some idiots. Based on reading some of the literature back in the 70's.

I mean, that the Earth wasn't flat was common knowledge at least as far back as the Ancient Greeks.

[Rossami]

"trolling" implies that it's done with bad intent. I've made the flat-earth argument as a way of demonstrating just how hard it is to truly prove something even as apparently simple as that. It's an excellent case study for teaching logical thinking and argumentation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Similar to the way I spent my philosophy and ethics elective in college vigorously defending Ethical Egoism. The prof was very appreciative of that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Second, Ho explains that the people lobbing charges of racial discrimination are often the very people who are engaging in racial discrimination. Ilya, who advocates for color-blindness and equality, vigorously opposed racial discrimination.

If you asked Ilya, I am sure he would say that he's the one standing up for racial equality, and that his opponents are the ones who are supporting racial discrimination.

Racism is a scourge that America has not yet fully extinguished—and the first step in fighting racial discrimination is to stop practicing it.

Anti-racists are the real racists. Three times.

It is impossible to oppose racism without taking cognizance of race. Nobody who condemns taking cognizance of race can claim to be an anti-racist, or to oppose racism. The very best that can be said of such people is that they advocate that discussion of racism be silenced.

Anyone who, "advocates for color-blindness and equality," as a present condition, demanding that as a premise for present laws, present norms, present academic practices, and present debates, does not deserve to be treated as a serious person. Serious people understand present conditions, and base substantive discussions on the world that is, reserving counter-factuals for aspirations.

[Davy C]

Nobody who condemns taking cognizance of race can claim to be an anti-racist, or to oppose racism. The very best that can be said of such people is that they advocate that discussion of racism be silenced.

Maybe if they condemn taking cognizance of race *ever*, including not mentioning it in discussions, you can say that. But I don't know anyone who holds that view. Holding the view that race should not be actually *used* for things like university admissions or Supreme Court appointments is not the same as saying that all discussion of racism should be silenced.

[Michael P]

"Racism is the real anti-racism." Three times. You are still not a serious person.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Anti-racists are the real racists. Three times."

It's worth repeating, because it's true.

"It is impossible to oppose racism without taking cognizance of race."

It is impossible to oppose racism while practicing it.

You're telling people race matters, and because it matters, they should disadvantage themselves to benefit a different race. This is a really, really stupid line of argument! Not everybody is consumed with racial self-hatred, just looking for an excuse to abase themselves and suffer. If you succeed in convincing most people that racial discrimination is morally permissible, they'll want it in their favor, not targeted at them.

Convincing people racial discrimination is wrong is doable. Trying to convince people that racial discrimination is right and just, but only if they're on the losing end of it, is a fool's game.

But it's a smart move if you're a racial grievance huckster who'd be out of a job if people really stopped being racist.

[SimonP]

Brett, do you deny that significant cultural and economic disparities between the races continue to exist in the U.S.? If not, do you agree that this is a problem?

Suppose we were to wave a magic wand and create, tomorrow, a world where no one "discriminates on the basis of race," either consciously or subconsciously. Will those cultural and economic disparities disappear? Will they dissipate quickly over time, since no one discriminates on the basis of race any more?

If you believe that the disparities will self-resolve once we remove discrimination on the basis of race, then you have to admit that the disparities that currently do exist are there because people are discriminating on the basis of race. If you think those disparities are likely to persist, even without discrimination on the basis of race, then you have to acknowledge that those disparities arise and self-perpetuate themselves due to forces we usually describe as "systemic racism" (since they arise due not to the choices of any individual actor, but from the way our society is currently structured).

So the only way out of that dilemma, for you, is to reject that systemic cultural and economic disparities based on race are actually a problem. If Black people are disproportionately likely to be poor, unemployed, wrung through the criminal justice system, etc., that is too bad, but nothing we should worry about. (Though I expect your dodge, then, will be to pin those disparities on "liberals," which is the usual dittohead response.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, do you deny that significant cultural and economic disparities between the races continue to exist in the U.S.? If not, do you agree that this is a problem?"

Of course such disparities exist. Outside of some economic version of Harrison Bergeron, I don't see how they could NOT exist. Path dependence, and all that.

"Suppose we were to wave a magic wand and create, tomorrow, a world where no one "discriminates on the basis of race," either consciously or subconsciously. Will those cultural and economic disparities disappear? Will they dissipate quickly over time, since no one discriminates on the basis of race any more?"

No, almost certainly they would not, because it wasn't just racism that created them in the first place, and it is hardly racism at all that maintains them now at this point. At this point they're being maintained by cultural factors within part of the black community.

"So the only way out of that dilemma, for you, is to reject that systemic cultural and economic disparities based on race are actually a problem."

Well, systematic cultural disparities, correlated with race, are actually the cause of economic disparities correlated with race. And I think it's a genuine problem that we have a subculture in America that is so dysfunctional, regardless of the demographics of that subculture.

But I don't think you fix a dysfunctional subculture by telling the people in it that all their problems are due to other people being bad. Actually, I don't know how you fix a dysfunctional subculture, but I'm pretty damn confident that telling people who are digging their own hole that somebody else is burying them is NOT helping them.

[SimonP]

Ah, so you’re just a racist, then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so you're just an idiot, then.

[SimonP]

You're the one who said, "At this point [continuing disparities are] being maintained by cultural factors within part of the black community." Is that not an essentially racist thing to say?

No, no - I'm sure you'll say it's just an objective observation of reality. Like the IQ tests and phrenology texts and the rest. "Look, I'm not saying Blacks are inferior. I'm just saying their subculture is dysfunctional." Maybe you could tell me about how Black people are only partially capable of full human reasoning.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it would be an essentially racist thing to say that they were being maintained by cultural factors within "the" black community. It's hardly racist to recognize that a deplorably large fraction of blacks (and whites!) in America have destructive cultural values.

"I'm just saying their subculture is dysfunctional."

It's not THEIR subculture. It's just a subculture too many of them are members of. How is that a difficult point to understand? If I say "Too many blacks are gangbangers.", I'm not saying "Blacks are gangbangers."

I keep saying it's only some of them, and too many whites, too, and you keep pretending that I'm saying it's all of them, because you're trying to WARP what I'm saying into a confession of racism.

Just cut that out, you're not fooling anybody.

[SimonP]

Just shifting goalposts, here.

You claim that only some members of the Black community are "gangbangers" (to use your term in order to refer to whatever cultural factors you'd otherwise cite to explain the issue). Here, you're saying that you don't deny that white people can also be gangbangers, and you're not saying that all Black people are gangbangers. Still, you're citing Black gangbangers as the reason that cultural and economic disparities between the white and Black communities would continue to persist, even in a world without any kind of discrimination on the basis of race.

You're therefore saying one of two things: Blacks are disproportionately likely to be gangbangers, or Black gangbangers are somehow worse than white gangbangers. Both are essentially racist claims, but you are trying to avoid saying them explicitly by pretending that I've failed to appreciate some distinction you've never actually drawn, and taking issue with that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Here, you're saying that you don't deny that white people can also be gangbangers,"

It's not merely a theoretical possibility. It's demonstrably true.

"Still, you're citing Black gangbangers as the reason that cultural and economic disparities between the white and Black communities would continue to persist, even in a world without any kind of discrimination on the basis of race. "

Yes, precisely. If blacks disproportionately have values that aren't conducive to success, and pass them on to their children in the way parents normally do, then blacks disproportionately won't succeed. It's not a complicated idea.

"You're therefore saying one of two things: Blacks are disproportionately likely to be gangbangers, or Black gangbangers are somehow worse than white gangbangers. "

Disproportionately likely. Haven't I been saying that, over and over?

"Both are essentially racist claims"

Nope. Statistical observations are never "racist", because reality isn't racist. If blacks are more often gangbangers than whites, they just are. Nothing the least bit racist about noticing it.

I'm not saying blacks are more likely to be gangbangers, (Using this as just a shorthand.) because they're black. Don't even try to pretend I'm saying that. They're just statistically over-represented among gangbangers for path dependence reasons. Essentially, the "War on Poverty" really, really harmed the poor, culturally, especially in areas of concentrated poverty. And for historical reasons, when that 'War' began, blacks were over-represented among the poor, especially in urban concentrations of poverty. So they disproportionately took that damage. But similarly situated whites were similarly damaged.

I mean, if a meteor struck your average inner city, most of the victims would be black, and it wouldn't be racist to notice it, and it wouldn't be because meteors were racist, either. In this case, the War on Poverty was the 'meteor'.

Now, what do we do about this? That's the question. But doing anything requires starting out by recognizing what is actually wrong, instead of telling comforting fairy tales.

[SimonP]

Essentially, the "War on Poverty" really, really harmed the poor, culturally, especially in areas of concentrated poverty.

Look who bungled his way into being a critical race theorist!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't think that's critical race theory, unless you assume that it was deliberate, and whites generally were responsible.

[SimonP]

Yeah, I don't think that's critical race theory, unless you assume that it was deliberate, and whites generally were responsible.

This is where your ignorance gets you into trouble, Brett.

Put plainly, it wouldn't at all be offensive to a critical race theorist to point out the ways in which our welfare system disserves and perpetuates the poverty of poor Blacks. The difference between you and them is just that they would characterize the system as creating perverse incentives for people relying on meager support from a bureaucratically complex system, while living in communities already impoverished by generations of disinvestment, and would seek to do something about those incentives and that disinvestment, while you would wave your hands about a "culture of dependence" and call on Black single mothers to pull themselves by their bootstraps.

[Brett Bellmore]

"while you would wave your hands about a "culture of dependence" and call on Black single mothers to pull themselves by their bootstraps."

No, seriously, what I have advocated is conditioning public assistance on acceptance of relocation aid, if you need the assistance for more than a short while, and live someplace with an unusually high rate of unemployment. I don't see the point in paying people to stay where they're not going to find a job. Even if the local politicians would hate the consequences for apportionment.

And I've suggested that it might not be a bad idea to revive the CCC, or something similar, and instead of simply paying people money, hire them for productive work. There's no shortage of respectable work out there, might as well get some of it done for the money, and make it clear that you don't get anything in life free.

And why are you taking the existence of black single mothers as a given? That's a choice, and it's a really self-destructive choice, part of that dysfunctional culture I was talking about. We need to find a way to convince those women not to get pregnant if they're single in the first place.

[SimonP]

No, seriously, what I have advocated is conditioning public assistance on acceptance of relocation aid, if you need the assistance for more than a short while, and live someplace with an unusually high rate of unemployment.

Makes perfect sense. Take a person who's barely living within their means as it is, disrupt their lives entirely by taking them out of their support community, the city they know, whatever, and "relocate" them to someplace where there are jobs (which may or may not be suited to the person's skillset).

And why are you taking the existence of black single mothers as a given? That's a choice, ...

More precisely, it's a trap. I understood you had the racist image of the "welfare queen" - i.e., a Black single mother with more children than she "should" have - and compared one take of the dysfunction of the welfare system to what I presumed to be yours.

And you not only embraced it, but slipped right into the usual conservative complaint, about Black single motherhood being a consequence of their individual moral failings. With no real suggestions for how to address it, of course - conservatives love to complain about the problems caused by culture, but have no suggestions for how to push the culture to change.

Hey, maybe here's a start: instead of defunding Planned Parenthood, maybe states could do more to support an organization that can educate poor women on their reproductive healthcare options, including both contraceptives and abortion? How about, instead of pouring money into incarcerating Black men picked up on drug and gun charges, we use diversion programs and more equitable policing to avoid breaking up families in the first place? How about, instead of trying to control individual choices with red tape and eligibility cliffs, we redesign our welfare programs so that people are incentivized to work, get married, and stay together?

[Stephen Lathrop]

And why are you taking the existence of black single mothers as a given? That's a choice, and it's a really self-destructive choice, part of that dysfunctional culture I was talking about.

Just curious, Bellmore. Do you know what an anti-racist take on that assertion would look like? Why not tell us what it is?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Makes perfect sense. Take a person who's barely living within their means as it is, disrupt their lives entirely by taking them out of their support community, the city they know, whatever, and "relocate" them to someplace where there are jobs (which may or may not be suited to the person's skillset)."

Yes, makes perfect sense: If somebody's life is on a glide path to failure, it NEEDS to be disrupted. If somebody is surrounded by bad role models, they need to be separated from them. If somebody is in a place with no opportunities, they need to go somewhere that success is actually an option.

You're still stuck in that toxic "poverty is just bad luck, and it's 'blaming the victim' to say otherwise" mindset, when the truth is poverty is mostly a result of bad choices and bad habits. ("Mostly", there are occasional exceptions, but that's what they are: Exceptions.) And the person who's poor needs to change, not just be given money.

"Hey, maybe here's a start: instead of defunding Planned Parenthood, maybe states could do more to support an organization that can educate poor women on their reproductive healthcare options, including both contraceptives and abortion?"

Hey, here's a suggestion: Don't shack up with a dude who won't marry you.

"How about, instead of pouring money into incarcerating Black men picked up on drug and gun charges, we use diversion programs and more equitable policing to avoid breaking up families in the first place?"

How about not getting high and committing robberies?

"How about, instead of trying to control individual choices with red tape and eligibility cliffs, we redesign our welfare programs so that people are incentivized to work, get married, and stay together?"

How about we notice most people don't need that to avoid robbing convenience stores, or that making life easier for people who make bad choices is the diametrical opposite of giving them incentives to make good choices?

How about we tell people that if they want any help, they have to shape up and do the hard work of changing their lives?

[SimonP]

Yes, makes perfect sense: If somebody's life is on a glide path to failure, it NEEDS to be disrupted...

Like all conservative authoritarians, you view welfare as an opportunity to pass judgment on its recipients. Personally, I'm more interested in solving problems.

From a policy perspective, it doesn't much matter, all of these questions of luck and choice. What matters is the fact of single-parent households, incarcerated parents, neighborhoods devoid of good schools or job opportunities, etc. Conservatives like you prefer to play out these morality tales, written across the lives of people you've never met or bothered to understand. For what perverse pleasure, I'll never understand.

Yes, disruption matters. Poor people may have friends, churches and family that provide mutual aid. A grandmother babysits a mother's child while she goes to work. A friend lends her fifty dollars so she doesn't have to go to payday lender. You want to use poor people as indentured servants. It's a monstrous, counterproductive policy proposal, far worse than "work requirements."

Your answer to unplanned pregnancies is... abstinence advocacy? I mean, at some point it becomes hard to know whether you're interested in solving problems at all. You seem to be saying that we don't need to worry about destabilizing disparities of wealth between races, or intergenerational poverty and all of the problems it creates, if at the end of the day women are just sluts. It's not about getting your authoritarian rocks off, Brett. Policy requires acknowledging that people will have sex regardless of whether you or I feel that's the best decision for them, and attempting to prevent that fact from producing results that no one wants. Access to contraceptive care. Emergency contraception when needed. Abortion access if desired, prenatal care if preferred. That's how you begin to address the problem of single motherhood. Anything else is just an excuse to do nothing.

And your answer to Black incarceration is... don't commit crimes? What universe are you living in, Brett? We're not just talking about guys going away for decades for extremely violent crimes. We're talking about busting guys on minor crimes and getting them to plead guilty and serve short prison terms. We're talking about throwing Black teenagers in jail for high school tiffs. We're talking about perfectly innocent Black people minding their own business but getting busted for BS charges like "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer" when an unwanted interaction with a passing police officer turns ugly for no fault of their own. We have an astonishing number of Black men in jail, Brett. Why is that? Do you think it's just because Black men are just uniquely unable to make good decisions for themselves?

You know what, never mind - don't answer that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

You're telling people race matters, and because it matters, they should disadvantage themselves to benefit a different race. — Bellmore

Bellmore, assume a hiring decision is at stake. On what policy basis is it better for an employer to pick you, instead of some black person? In every such decision there will be one winner, and likely multiple losers. What is wrong policy-wise if you end up among the losers—even if you end up among the losers time after time? Why do you suppose it is better public policy to give a job to you than it is to give the job to a black person?

If there is no public policy reason to give the job to you, what are you complaining about? See how it makes you feel to think about this: There is zero public policy reason to prefer Bellmore for any job. Are you comfortable with that? You should be. It is just a Bellmore-centric way of saying what you seem to be advocating for others.

Time and again, you confine your advocacy to promotion of your own interest—while adding insistent complaints against reckoning the interests of others. That amounts to a summary of your advocacy. What makes you suppose you own any such advantage?

As for, "Too many blacks are gangbangers," why do you suppose that matters at all? It does nothing to preclude, "Too many blacks are better candidates than Bellmore."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Bellmore, assume a hiring decision is at stake. On what policy basis is it better for an employer to pick you, instead of some black person?"

On no policy basis that I would consider respectable would the fact that they're black, and I'm so white I glow in the dark, be a relevant consideration, in either direction. I'm quite sure there are plenty of black engineers who are better qualified than me, maybe even a handful in my very narrow specialty. Sucks for me if one of them applies for a job I'm trying to get, but such is life.

"As for, "Too many blacks are gangbangers," why do you suppose that matters at all? It does nothing to preclude, "Too many blacks are better candidates than Bellmore.""

It matters because those blacks would be better off if they weren't gangbangers, obviously. You think I don't have any sympathy for some kid whose future is blighted because his parents raise him to have destructive values, and because his parents' values disadvantage him? Because they didn't force him to do his homework, and his neighborhood was short on positive role models?

"Too many blacks are better candidates than Bellmore."

What does that even mean? Too many on what basis? If they're better job candidates than me, good for them! If every black in America were a better job candidate than me, it would be kind of monotonous, and it would suck to be me, but it would be good for them and the country.

[Social Justice is neither]

And yet your argument is that not having a black centric policy above all else, including ability to do the job is the racist stance. JFC you are stupid enough you're arguing against your own position and think you're making a strong point in favor of your side.

[Absaroka]

"Take a person who's barely living within their means as it is, disrupt their lives entirely by taking them out of their support community, the city they know, whatever, and "relocate" them to someplace where there are jobs (which may or may not be suited to the person's skillset)."

I don't get this at all. If I currently have a job, I'm going to be picky about finding a new job that I like, in a place I like, etc, etc. But in the times in my life when I didn't have a job and was running out of money (and I don't like hunger!), the job I was looking for was ... doing anything, in any place. This isn't some unusual habit of mine; it's what what most people do. One time when my wife was looking for work she got a call for an entry level construction job. She said 'Yes!', and *then* asked where it was. It was a couple thousand miles away. She was packing her '69 bug within the hour. This is typical for much of the population; when you don't have a job, you take any job you can. Then and only then do you look for a better job.

As for skill sets ... unless you are disabled in some way, you have the skill set for something. There aren't any regions that don't need e.g. restaurant dishwashers (my first job as a teenager).

[Don Nico]

""At this point [continuing disparities are] being maintained by cultural factors within part of the black community." "
Your objection, Simon, is an extremely weak, patronizing defence of conditions in the working class black community. It is hard to imagine anything more racist than that as your not even honest about it.

[Joe_dallas]

SimonP
February.16.2022 at 9:35 am
Brett, do you deny that significant cultural and economic disparities between the races continue to exist in the U.S.? If not, do you agree that this is a problem?"

Simon - No one disputes that cultural and economic disparities between races exist.

The problem is the fixation on race is that
A) it greatly hinders any honest attempt to understand the multitude of causes of those disparities.
B) it greatly hinders implementing viable long term solution to the closing those gaps
C) the fixation on racism is hugely counter productive 1) creates division among the races and 2) fails to address the any of the larger issues causing those dispairities.

[tkamenick]

"Anti-racists are the real racists."

Yes. They are. Simply calling yourself "anti-racist" doesn't mean jack diddly. Anti-racists are the groups of people explicitly calling for some people to be treated worse than others solely based on the color of their skin. They are the people engaging in gross stereotyping of races. They are the people imposing original sin on others based solely on the color of their skin.

[Seamus]

Anti-racists are the real racists. Three times.

OK, we'll change it to "self-styled anti-racists are the real racists." Which would be true. Just as self-styled antifa[scists] (who literally wear black shirts while carryout out acts of political violence) are the real fascists.

[SimonP]

It is so irritating to be lectured by conservatives about the dynamics and wherefores of racism when they so clearly have never bothered to read any of the theories or analyses they purport to critique.

Theorists have a robust and well-reasoned explanation for why official "color-blindness" in a deeply segregated and race-driven society will just perpetuate those divisions. They also have a complete theoretical accounting for what their critics are doing when they extol the virtues of "colorblindness" and say vapid things like, "the only way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." "Arguments" like Ho's are, from their perspective, almost trivial to rebut.

It's not like any of this is new. "Colorblindness" and "official equality" has been the banner of white supremacy right from this country's founding. What was "separate but equal," after all, but the official position that our law could be officially neutral as between the races? We lived with that standard for half a century, and learned all too well the lie behind it.

"Colorblindness" is just the newest skin for a white supremacy that is continuing to evolve as attitudes change.

[Cal Cetín]

""Colorblindness" is just the newest skin for a white supremacy that is continuing to evolve as attitudes change."

"Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." /John Marshal Harlan I

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537

[Brett Bellmore]

Undeniably true of the Constitution, especially post 14th amendment. Not particularly true of practice, mind you. But the Constitution itself was totally race blind, had no reference to race AT ALL, prior to the ratification of the 15th amendment. It was quite deliberately written that way.

That was part of what made the Dred Scot ruling so heinous: Taney just pulled that one out of his ass, he had no constitutional basis for it, at all.

[JD85]

The first article of the constitution explicitly rebuts the idea that it was ever colorblind.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope. It hinged on whether you were free, not whether you were black. And a considerable fraction of the black population were free, especially in the Northern colonies. There were also a few white slaves at the time, though admittedly not many.

And "Indians" didn't refer to a racial group, but rather what amounted to sovereign territories within the states, which is why it was "Indians not taxed", not just Indians. If you were an Indian living as a citizen of a state, rather than a tribe, you counted.

[Bob from Ohio]

Both John Marshal Harlans were great justices.

[SimonP]

OOGA BOOGA ACKSHUALLY THEY WERE USING THE TERM EVEN DURING SEPARATE BUT EQUAL HRRRRNNNGGGH

[Cal Cetín]

"Like, color blindness is the *real* racism, man. [puff, puff]"

[SimonP]

OOGA BOOGA WHY WON'T THIS STRAWMAN DIE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I BEAT IT HRRRRRRNNNGGHH

[Brett Bellmore]

Race hucksters have a solidly rationalized explanation for why race huckstering is vitally necessary, and why an end to it is the worst possible thing.

""Colorblindness" and "official equality" has been the banner of white supremacy right from this country's founding."

All you've convinced me of with that argument is that you're clinically insane.

[SimonP]

Brett, you acknowledge in your other comment that the Constitution was color-blind, making no reference to race. You admit, also, that Taney's opinion in Dred Scott finds no basis in its text. Yet it is also historically correct to say, throughout that entire period, that America was essentially a white supremacist state. (As it continued to be, officially, through the Jim Crow era.)

So, no, it's not "clinically insane" to claim that white supremacists have long hidden their purposes behind race-neutral language. I think you just don't know what these words mean.

Or, rather - you want to differentiate between two white supremacisms. One is the express, intentionally-racist white supremacist, who has no problem saying that non-whites are "inferior" and supporting legal regimes that enforce that inferiority. The other is, not, in your view, properly called "white supremacist," because it embraces race neutrality in law but then goes along and says things like "the Black subculture is essentially dysfunctional," as a step towards also saying, "there is nothing that we can or should do about that, as a matter of law or policy." The end result being that white supremacy in practice can and will persevere.

[Cal Cetín]

"the Black subculture is essentially dysfunctional"

No, but there *is* a lot of dysfunction.

The good news, from an anti-racist perspective, is that large numbers of whites are increasingly showing the same dysfunction. The racial gap is closing! I'm sure this is a result we can all cheer.

[SimonP]

OOGA BOOGA CLASS SOLIDARITY BUT NOT THE MARXIST KIND HRRRNNGGH

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, you must be off your meds, that's the only explanation for thinking this is helping you any.

[SimonP]

This is the only kind of response Cal deserves from me.

[Brett Bellmore]

You respond rationally because you're rational, not because others deserve it of you. Or not, because you're not, as the case may be.

[Cal Cetín]

I hope you're not assuming Simple Simon is telling the truth about our earlier exchange.

[Brett Bellmore]

My remark stands regardless of the nature of that exchange.

[Brett Bellmore]

No.

You've got white supremacists who were not shy about what they were doing, and who were openly saying that non-whites were inferior.

And you had white supremacists who lied about what they were up to, so they pretended that they weren't racist.

That doesn't make the non-racists they were pretending to be "white supremacists"!

There is, by the way, no "the black subculture". There's a dysfunctional subculture, (Probably several, if you get into the weeds>) not all blacks are members of it, and not all members of it are black.

It would be racist to claim that it's "the black subculture".

[SimonP]

You're spiraling into incoherence, Brett. You've pretty much conceded my point, here, which was: "White supremacy has long used color-blindness and official equality as a banner for promoting their own white-supremacist interest." Here, you're saying, "There is such a thing as a white supremacist who pretends not to be a white supremacist in order to promote their own white-supremacist interest." That is what I am saying.

And again with this "anti-racism is the real racism": "It would be racist to say that only one Black subculture exists; in fact, I am asserting that several dysfunctional Black subcultures exist."

[Brett Bellmore]

"You're spiraling into incoherence, Brett. "

Says the ogga booga guy.

""It would be racist to say that only one Black subculture exists; in fact, I am asserting that several dysfunctional Black subcultures exist.""

I'm not asserting that there's any such thing as a "black subculture", you moron. That's on you.

There are multiple subcultures in America. Some are dysfunctional, some normally functional, some excel at being functional. Black economic performance suffers on account of blacks being disproportionately members of the former, not the latter. But they're not cultures defined by race, they're defined by behavior, values, attitudes.

If you're a member of a dysfunctional subculture, being white doesn't save you. If you're a member of a high performing subculture, being black doesn't hurt you. It's not about race at all. It's about culture, and it just looks like it's about race if you squint real hard, because the races are not uniformly distributed among the cultures, for historical path dependence reasons.

[SimonP]

My issue with Cal relates to another thread, where he demonstrated his complete inability and/or disinterest to engage in a disagreement in good faith. He gets nothing but ooga boogas from me, from now on.

I've responded to the rest of this in the other thread.

[Cal Cetín]

Sorry, you're guilty of a terminological inexactitude.

You insulted me when I hadn't said anything to insult you. It was then that I insulted you right back. Then you played the victim.

You could have engaged me in good faith, and you project your failure to do so onto others.

[SimonP]

Choose one:

(1) OOGA BOOGA YES I AM THIS STUPID HRRNNNGGH

(2) OOGA BOOGA YES I WILL LIE BECAUSE NO ONE GIVES ENOUGH OF A SHIT TO CATCH ME OUT ON IT HAHAHA HRNNGGGH

[Cal Cetín]

I'll take #3 - yo mama is ugly.

[Don Nico]

Simon
It is also very frustrating to be lectured by a self-righteous hypocrite

[Rossami]

You seem unable to accept the possibility that those theories and analyses have been carefully read but still rejected as not nearly so "robust and well-reasoned" as you allege.

Since your sole rebuttal seems to be 'the only people who think we should stop discriminating on the basis of race must be white supremacists', I'm gonna go with 'you don't even understand the theories about racism, much less the criticisms of those theories and studies.'

[Cheerio]

100%

[SimonP]

You seem unable to accept the possibility that those theories and analyses have been carefully read but still rejected as not nearly so "robust and well-reasoned" as you allege.

Usually, when this is the case, a person doesn't continue to argue against strawmen or re-present their old ideas without any adjustment. For instance, I acknowledge the Laffer curve and explain why it's not helpful; I defend affirmative action in theory while acknowledging its many faults in practice; and so on.

Nothing Ho has said leads me to believe he's done any of that work. And nothing you've said suggests to me that you've done any kind of intellectual work at all.

[Cheerio]

"Theorists have a robust and well-reasoned explanation for why official 'color-blindness' in a deeply segregated and race-driven society will just perpetuate those divisions. They also have a complete theoretical accounting for what their critics are doing when they extol the virtues of 'colorblindness' and say vapid things like, 'the only way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.' 'Arguments' like Ho's are, from their perspective, almost trivial to rebut."

That's all OPINION that you (or they) are of course free to advocate. But that's it! You don't get to treat those who disagree like they're somehow beyond the pale, especially when they're the majority.

[SimonP]

You don't get to treat those who disagree like they're somehow beyond the pale, especially when they're the majority.

A hack's a hack. Don't know what else I owe people.

[Cal Cetín]

"Nobody who condemns taking cognizance of race can claim to be an anti-racist, or to oppose racism."

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[Cheerio]

"Anyone who, 'advocates for color-blindness and equality,' as a present condition, demanding that as a premise for present laws, present norms, present academic practices, and present debates, does not deserve to be treated as a serious person."

But fortunately for them, they're actually a *majority* of the population. Hence, the only thing "unserious" is the gaslighty notion that this eminently mainstream view is somehow beyond the pale.

Enough with this garbage of simply trying to *will* views you disagree with out of the mainstream. Persuasion or bust!

[apedad]

"So cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture and our American culture. It's completely antithetical to the very legal system that each of you seeks to join. . . ."

I guess Judge Ho never read the First Amendment where not only can you and I say what we want but also NOT listen to what I or you say.

Cancel culture IS a valid form of free speech.

It's an individual or group saying, "We strongly disagree this (person/position), and no longer wish to associate with them."

Now, I'm NOT saying cancel culture is appropriate in every instance - and especially in Prof. Shapiro's case.

He used a phrase that was awkward and not well thought out but his intention was good.

[Michael P]

Judge Ho was making a point about American legal culture and its spirit of inquiry, not whether the First Amendment defends the speech rights of censorious jerks who don't respect the speech rights of others.

[apedad]

". . . censorious jerks who don't respect the speech rights of others."

Sigh....

Since when do you have to respect my right of speech?

You certainly don't have to listen to me and can ignore me.

You can deny entry into your personal spaces.

You can even try to gather others to try to get me cancelled.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Michael P]

You can certainly post a load of bullshit that has almost nothing to do with what you are replying to, but is only an exercise of your windbag.

And you frequently do!

[Michael P]

I mean, your argument is essentially that the First Amendment protects the right to claim that the moon is made of purple belly button lint, and to organize people to argue for that idea. That's true, but it doesn't engage at all with criticism that it's antithetical to American culture.

You're not engaging with what Ho actually said. You're just arguing that the First Amendment protects it. The First Amendment also protects someone arguing that "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation tomorrow" is the way it should be. But that idea is antithetical to the same cultures that Judge Ho was talking about. Citing the First Amendment doesn't excuse or justify the antithetical idea.

[Kristian H.]

Cancel culture is not about not listening, it is about limiting or preventing others from being able to hear. That is what I find atithecial to freedom. I don't like pop music. I am not working to have all the local changes go through a format change by pressuring advertisers. I change the f'ing station, THAT is the freedomo not to listen. Cancel culture is the Henry Ford 'you can have any color you want. as long as it is black.'

[apedad]

". . . it is about limiting or preventing others from being able to hear."

Nothing wrong with that or are YOU trying to limit people's speech but telling them they can't try to drown out a point of view.

Like (some) NASCAR or Chick-fil-a fans saying to those organizations, "Hey we don't like the message you're presenting. Change it or we'll stop supporting you."

THAT is freedom of speech too.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we really ought to distinguish between individuals boycotting an organization whose viewpoint they don't like, and an organization whose very purpose is enabling communications and debate boycotting a position.

Sure, if it's a private organization, it may have the legal right to do so, doesn't mean it should do so.

There's this argument in libertarianism about property rights and trespassing. Individuals have a right to bar you from their property, but does that mean a bunch of people can buy up the property all around you, and essentially imprison you because you can be barred from all routes out?

Individual and collective actions have different social implications.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Individual and collective actions have different social implications.

Good for you! So why do you continue to demand that collective actions such as public policies be evaluated exclusively according to individual implications?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you ARE capable of asking an intelligent question once in a while. Cool!

Look, only individuals are real, only individuals exist. Harms only happen to individuals, benefits only happen to individuals, justice is entirely an individual matter, you can't make a just society out of a mosaic where the individual pieces are injustices. This is basic methodological individualism.

But when individuals get together to systematically cooperate, this can have implications for other individuals that wouldn't be present if there wasn't systematic cooperation happening. If there are five hotels in a town, and one or two of them discriminate against a racial group, whoop dee doo, three or four are still available.

If there are five hotels in a town, and they enter into a conspiracy to discriminate against a racial group, it's a big freaking deal, because you can't get a hotel room.

And that's the difference between individual and collective action, in a nutshell.

A naive libertarianism doesn't account for this factor, but, of course, it's been obvious all along, and genuine theorists of libertarianism have routinely found the need to address it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Candidly, those theorists haven't necessary done a good job of addressing it, either... It's important to recognize the weak spots in your own ideology, and this is one.

[Krayt]

My point! Cancel culture has been with us for thousands of years, and worse!

In the 1990s, the brazen self-outing of Ellen on her show. Or Disney deciding to extend benefits to domestic partners.

Why were these brave? Cancel culture! It held corporations and individuals in check. God help you if some family values org with millions of weekly TV watchers took a stand against your company.

And it wasn't just social ostracism. People didn't even want tolerance, just to not be tossed in jail for it.

Can you fault the overreaction?

[DaivdBehar]

I support cancel culture. The slightest hint of woke should get the school shut down unless they immediately fire the utterer.

[DaivdBehar]

Woke is a Trojan Horse for Chinese Commie Party interests, and an enemy to our nation.

[grb]

apedad : "(Prof. Shapiro) used a phrase that was awkward and not well thought out but his intention was good"

Are you really sure about that? Because here's what I see: Look up Shapiro on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination and you find a nice little CBS interview where he say's she's "well-respected" and conducts herself with "grace". He doesn't claim she was the most qualified choice available because she clearly wasn't - not by a long shot. But he didn't care about that then - no one did - not with such a nice "graceful" white nominee.

Shapiro also didn't say there would be an "asterisk" always after Barrett's choice just because Trump said he was “saving her for Ginsburg.” That sort of thing didn't bother him then. Which raises the question of why he rhetorically unloaded both barrels of a shotgun on a "lesser black women" not even yet named. Because I'm willing to bet Biden's choice will also be "well-respected" and "graceful" (even if not white).

If you want to see Race in action in America, here's a perfect chance: Shapiro more than anyone knew Barrett was a political choice. He knew she wasn't the most qualified. He knew it's the sheerest accident if the "most qualified" person gets chosen for an open SCOUS seat. Yet only with a black women does Shapiro indulge his terrible-two-year-old within. You see the same hypocrisy up and down these comments. It's funny how Right-types suddenly believe in the purest meritocracy whenever there's a square-inch of black skin involved. Other times? Less so.

(I'm not even gonna mention Brett's gangbangers)

[Don Nico]

We all know that there is no "most qualified."

[grb]

Tell that to Shapiro, though his terms were “objectively best pick" vs "lesser black woman". Think he saw Barrett as the “objectively best pick"? I don't. Think he cared? Not one single second. Seems like it's only open season on "lesser" nominees when the skin tone darkens. A critique he'd never think to offer with Barrett suddenly spews out in the crudest manner. Kinda makes you wonder why?

PS: I told you Putin wouldn't invade and think I'll be proved correct. However I admit it's looked touch & go these last few weeks. Failed despots like Putin are so hard to predict.

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought part of his case for his preferred nominee being objectively better was that there are already blacks and women on the Court, and so the first black woman wasn't actually that big a deal, while the first Asian Indian would be.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was a very strange argument for a VP of CATO to be making, to be sure, and on multiple counts.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I thought part of his case for his preferred nominee being objectively better was that there are already blacks and women on the Court"

I don't think that captures the tone of Professor Shapiro's screed. He said (to the degree you can say anything in a gawdforsaken tweet) that Judge Srinivasan was the “objectively best pick", and "even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American."

I agree it shows a lack of consistency to raise something as a plus (benefit of being first Asian -Indian- American) at the same time you maliciously sneer at the very idea of nominating the first Black woman. In fact, it only makes his case worse. My own cynical view of the matter is this: Shapiro has a strong opinion on who is the best nominee, as I'm sure he does with every open SCOUS seat. He knows politics will govern the choice, as it has every time in the past. So why not blast Barrett's nomination with the same vindictiveness? Why not put out his choice then as more worthy? Why not sneer at the politics behind the woman Barrett replacing the woman Ginsburg? Why not snarl about the seventh Catholic on a nine-person bench just to virtue-signal on abortion politics?

So: why not? Because it was easier for the professor to be self-indulgently brainless-stupid & hypocritical with a Black nominee. That doesn't make him a terrible person. It doesn't make him a racist, because who among us haven't thoughtlessly handled some situation very differently because of race? It doesn't mean he should be fired.

It just means he's oblivious to the way his own brain works.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was more concerned with the identity politics, and thinking a dependable "progressive" was a plus, in a Cato VP.

When did the supposedly libertarian Cato Institute decide that progressive ideology was a qualifying factor in a judge?

[David Nieporent]

Why not snarl about the seventh Catholic on a nine-person bench just to virtue-signal on abortion politics?

Sixth. Although raised Catholic, Gorsuch is Episcopal.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"According to Ungar-Sargon, this explains the media’s current obsession with race—it’s a way for the media, and the wealthy white liberals whose priorities they most reflect, to not have to explain, let alone do something, about economic inequality. “A moral panic around race was the perfect solution: It took the guilt that they should have felt around their economic good fortune and political power—which they could have shared with the less fortunate had they cared to—and displaced it onto their whiteness, an immutable characteristic that they could do absolutely nothing to change,”"

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/news-for-the-elite/

[SimonP]

Once again, conservatives backing themselves into Marxism in order to avoid acknowledging systemic racism.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're trying to dismantle systematic racism, which today goes by the name of "anti-racism". What could be more systematically racist than a system of racial quotas and open discrimination? Than teaching that people are guilty or offended against, just on the basis of their race, without having to prove anything about their individual histories?

[Cal Cetín]

The idea that the rich abuse their power, and think of rationales for this abuse, didn't originate with Marx and is not monopolized by him.

[SimonP]

OOGA BOOGA RICH PEOPLE LIKE MONEY WHAT'S SO NEW ABOUT THAT, I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE MARX HAD A WHOLE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLAINING WHY RACE WOULDN'T MATTER IN A CLASSLESS SOCIETY OR WHY THE BOURGEOISIE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN CREATING AND CONTINUING RACIAL DIVISIONS HRNNNGGH

[Cal Cetín]

Not only is everything racist, everything is Marxist, too.

Don't bogart that joint, man.

[SimonP]

OOGA BOOOOGA I REDUCE RACE CONFLICT TO CLASS CONFLICT BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE ME MARXIST ALSO WEED IS FUNNY HRRRNGGGH

[Cal Cetín]

No, weed isn't funny, that's why Harold and Kumar, and Cheech and Chong, are poor and live in crates.

Now, "ooga-booga" is funny, and what's even better, it carries not even a hint of racial stereotyping.

[Don Nico]

mute

[SimonP]

*leaves a response to every last-in-thread comment of a user*

*leaves one last response declaring that the user is now muted*

Profit?

[Da5id]

Grats, join Behar and the Rev in the mute list.

[SimonP]

Is this supposed to be some kind of punishment?

[Don Nico]

You convince no one by shouting

[loki13]

"Bring him onto campus—and beat him!"

Breaking news- Judge Ho advocates for abducting and beating Ilya Shapiro.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One of the great achievements of the liberal-libertarian mainstream in America is that our remaining bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not in public.

A half-century ago, the bigotry was open, common, even casual. More than five decades of progress, however, now incline our dwindling population of gay-bashers, White nationalists, immigrant-haters, and misogynists to try to hide behind euphemisms such as "traditional values," or "conservative values," or "heartland," or "family values," or -- as Judge Ho indicates -- "colorblind."

Except in safe spaces where they can be less guarded, freer to express genuine opinions -- safe spaces such as private homes, pseudonymous online communities, Republican committee meetings, and Federalist Society gatherings.

Judge Ho seems a skilled advocate, which causes me to believe he would strive to divert attention from the reliance of his Republican Party (and movement conservatism) on superstitious homophobes, race-targeting vote suppressors, obsolete misogynists, authoritarian xenophobes, conservatives warning of "Jewish space lasers," and enthusiastic chanters of "Jews will not replace us." If even Judge Ho can't come up with anything better than 'liberals and Democrats are the real bigots,' however, the debate seems settled.

Carry on, clingers.

[Cal Cetín]

'conservatives warning of "Jewish space lasers,"'

From last year:

"[Washington, D. C. Democratic politician Trayon White is] immensely popular among his base, so much so that neither his questionable comments on vaccines (in the midst of a pandemic) nor his anti-Semetic [sic] comments about Jews controlling the weather a few years ago seemed to lose him any support."

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/535515/ward-8-councilmember-trayon-white-is-running-for-mayor/

[Bob from Ohio]

Blacks are beating Jews in NYC and stabbing Asians in Sam Fran.

No doubt motivated by a GOP backbencher from Alabama.

[Cal Cetín]

Yes, but like Shapiro should have done, I'd reconsider the phrasing.

"Perpetrators of hate crimes are too often black"* sounds better than "blacks are" etc. Though we get the shorthand.

*Not that there's an ideal racial balance in perpetrators of hate crimes - nobody should be committing crimes (hate crimes or love crimes) at all.

[SimonP]

Gosh, if only we had a theoretical framework for understanding why Black communities so often have conflicted relationships with other races that are subordinated to whites in the existing racial hierarchy but still privileged relative to Blacks. Or maybe some kind of historical understanding that might illuminate how, why, and under what systems Jewish and Southeast Asian immigrant communities in NYC or California came to enter into antagonistic relationships with the Black communities they interacted with.

But we're teaching our kids now that White America has and has always been Essentially Good, with a few one-off lamentable deviations along the way. So it's just an utter mystery. Guess it must be the Blacks' fault.

[Cal Cetín]

"But we're teaching our kids now that White America has and has always been Essentially Good, with a few one-off lamentable deviations along the way."

Back in the Paleolithic era, I was taught something quite different in high school - namely, that there had been lots of crimes committed against black people, often at the hands of the government and powerful companies and institutions.

Have the schools become *less* woke since then?

[Brett Bellmore]

I was taught that we started out with perfectly admirable principles which were not being lived up to, but that we were improving on that front.

[Cal Cetín]

Basically - "we still have the chance to live up to these ideals," was the naive and white-supremacist impression I got.

[SimonP]

It's really just crazy how, after almost 250 years, we're still struggling to figure it out, huh?

What if we were to try some parsimony? Two hypotheses: (1) America was founded on ideals of universal human equality, etc., that we have never actually achieved, and indeed tend to backtrack a bit after every step towards progress, despite apparently near-uniform agreement of what those ideals ought to be. (2) America was founded on putative ideals like "universal human equality" that in fact had embedded within them a racial and gendered hierarchy that was expected to persevere and indeed was arguably intrinsic to those stated ideals, so the sputtering progress we've made since then reflects the tension between the promise and the reality.

Like - are American racists part of the polity, or not?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, yeah. If, hypothetically, the North hadn't conquered the South, and dragged them back into the Union, I think we'd have advanced a lot faster, though the South might have remained mired. Like grafting back on a gangrenous limb after it amputated itself, the North poisoned itself.

And we were really making giant strides, until the race hucksters saw the end of the con coming, and came up with this 'anti-racism' garbage.

Now, the attempt to relegalize racial discrimination in California was defeated pretty soundly, and you'd think that if AA could win anywhere, it would be in California, so I'd say the general population is coming along nicely, just about ready to put this racial discrimination to bed. I live in South Carolina, and look around, and I see plenty of inter-racial couples, and nobody is giving them any grief, and my mixed race neighborhood is pretty friendly. Yeah, the general population are pretty 'liberal' when it comes to race.

But there's certainly a toxic strain of racism at large among the 'elites', that's for sure. And they're working hard to raise race tensions as high as possible, and make sure that the nation never gets over racism, because it's a source of power for them.

Very sad, but I think they may just be about played out.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, your prediction is that if only the Supreme Court would outlaw consideration of race in public policy, black Americans would settle down and stop complaining about structural racism? Because structural racism is not real? As we all know, it is an imaginary notion, kept alive by evil white liberals who are the real racists?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not instantly, of course. It's not like the Sharptons and Kendis of the world are going to give up easily.

Yeah, "structural racism" isn't real. It's a fantasy designed to be unfalsifiable. A way of telling people who are digging themselves into a hole to keep digging, because somebody else is responsible for their problems.

[SimonP]

Brett, if there were any truth at all to your assertion that we were on the cusp of a post-racial utopia before people started making noise over systemic racism, then the response to "anti-racists" would have been a collective shrug. Black people aren't dupes; they're not going to start asserting new grievances they don't feel.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not as open and shut as that, but we were making good progress, and the race hucksters have been working overtime to stop that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we're teaching our kids now that White America has and has always been Essentially Good"

Yes, that is happening in San Fran and NYC. Very insightful.

[SimonP]

It's exactly what is happening in Texas. Anyway, I wasn't citing the Newspeak Curriculum to explain what's happening in NYC or California. I would point, rather, to what living in this country as a Black, Jewish, or Asian-American person in the late nineteenth-to-early-twentieth century person was like, and how those experiences continue to be reflected in the way our communities are organized.

[Don Nico]

"we're teaching our kids now that White America has and has always been Essentially Good,"
Simon,
Where did you see that. By maybe that explains why in the Great Blue San Francisco 70% voted to recall the three most crazy anti-racists

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Democratic bigots are no better than Republican bigots.

They tend to cause less harm, though, because they have not caused their political party to rely on bigotry to attract core support.

Individually, however, they are no better.

[Cal Cetín]

"Rothschild Weather Machine" would be a good name for a rock band.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ho continues his Supreme Court audition.

[QuantumBoxCat]

I for one commend the brave men and women of the Federalist Society for leading by example and inviting a speaker whose views run counter to those of the audience.

Oh....wait....

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, so you actually do know nothing about the Federalist Society, and who they invite to speak at their events.

Federalist Society 2014 National Lawyers Convention

Huh, Obama's White house counsel was a speaker. Go figure.

See, the Federalist Society really does figure you sharpen your arguments by exposure to the best advocates of the opposing side, rather than hiding from them. So they make a point of inviting speakers they don't agree with.