-->
@bmdrocks21
yeah i see what your saying, its just because the west is white, everything else is just noise
Liberals, what should be done about race in America?
Posts
Total:
61
-->
@zedvictor4
all i saw was truth
-->
@thett3
The 2 greatest contributors to the ongoing ethnic disparities in America are the single-Mother rate and lack of quality schooling.
Every time I try to engage any liberal on this site, they either go silent or they say objectively stupid things like "single mothers are just as good and you're racist"
or "existing schools and Teacher unions need more power and money funded with taxes" Despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That’s the only distinguisher I can see. None of their attacks are for things exclusive to us. Slavery, for instance, is supposed to be a uniquely bad thing we did. However, the US was a tiny part of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Arab slave trade was larger than that trade, too (and more brutal).
lack of quality schooling.
existing schools and Teacher unions need more power and money funded with taxes
Not only is it true the schools do but if you support the education disparity needing to be fixed, there is more that has to be provided for the very poor, a 'few dollars' is a medium purchase the poorest, this seems unthinkable to the more well-off.
A calculator is expensive to them, you need to understand that absolutely everything is costly for them (let alone a laptop to be able to do anything technical-based from home which really caused issues during Covid).
lack of quality schooling.existing schools and Teacher unions need more power and money funded with taxesNot only is it true the schools do but if you support the education disparity needing to be fixed, there is more that has to be provided for the very poor, a 'few dollars' is a medium purchase the poorest, this seems unthinkable to the more well-off.A calculator is expensive to them, you need to understand that absolutely everything is costly for them (let alone a laptop to be able to do anything technical-based from home which really caused issues during Covid).
Lack of quality schooling isn't the problem. It's the lack of quality students that result in a sub-standard school -- the tail doesn't wag the dog.
We know this through voucher studies wherein students who went to 'bad schools' are put into a lottery to be placed into better quality schools, despite not having the grades to be admitted to those schools. The lucky students do as well as you'd expect them to based on the grades they got before the lottery (i.e. not well), and so merely having "good schooling" doesn't effect students to any noticeable degree. Clearly, lottery studies suggest that school performance is largely heritable School Quality as a Cause of Racial IQ Gaps – The Alternative Hypothesis .
Moreover, throwing money at students and teachers isn't going to make them better students. Massive government handouts for laptops and calculators won't resolve the issue that education performance is largely a result of heritability.
This also speaks to the common problem that people (usually the low intelligence, ill-equipped people) are having kids they can't afford, and thus making everyone else pay for them. I don't mind marriage having tax cuts for child-related expenses because it is expensive to raise kids, but a single mother with 6 children from 5 dads shouldn't be collecting large welfare checks and making everyone else pay for her mistakes.
Not taking the bait, just pointing out to anyone else reading that the 'tail doesn't wag the dog' should clearly, blatantly apply to the quality of education and teacher-training (with handling unruly students and techniques of rewarding good behaviour and punishing malicious behaviour within a school) being the dog and the students being the tail.
-->
@bmdrocks21
i've never understood the slavery argument, 95% of white people come from humble beginnings. My family come from inner-city working class Catholics who have literally zero connection to slavery but it doesnt matter to these people.
Additionally, the love to say that white people have no culture. Which makes no sense because we absolutely do have a culture(or at least did before it was eroded into mindless consumerism).
There extremely direct. That hate white people. They absolutely hate them yet nobody wants to say this?
Not taking the bait
This your cowardly way of saying 'I don't have any worthwhile counter-arguments'.
But read the next part and I'll demonstrate this.
just pointing out to anyone else reading that the 'tail doesn't wag the dog' should clearly, blatantly apply to the quality of education and teacher-training (with handling unruly students and techniques of rewarding good behaviour and punishing malicious behaviour within a school) being the dog and the students being the tail.
You weren't just pointing this out.
You were talking about how laptops and calculators were expensive for students: "A calculator is expensive to them, you need to understand that absolutely everything is costly for them (let alone a laptop to be able to do anything technical-based from home which really caused issues during Covid)." Liberals, what should be done about race in America? (debateart.com)
You were also talking about how there was an 'education disparity' that needed to be fixed, and that giving poor students more money was a viable solution: "Not only is it true the schools do but if you support the education disparity needing to be fixed, there is more that has to be provided for the very poor, a 'few dollars' is a medium purchase the poorest, this seems unthinkable to the more well-off." Liberals, what should be done about race in America? (debateart.com)
Neither of what you said in those quotes is what you're "just pointing out" in this new post, so this proves you as ignorant about what you wrote or a liar.
Furthermore, I responded to your original post Liberals, what should be done about race in America? (debateart.com) that school quality doesn't have a noticeable effect on student achievement Liberals, what should be done about race in America? (debateart.com) . You saying "not taking the bait" fails to address that and everyone can see that.
So thanks for making my argument look this good.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I would suggest Doc.
That what you saw, was what YOU saw.
Truth in your eyes, but not truth in everyone's eyes.
Better described simply as.....How YOU see things.
I would further suggest that the actual "TRUTH" of the matter is indeterminate.
-->
@zedvictor4
interesting zed
-->
@Dr.Franklin
They absolutely hate them yet nobody wants to say this?
Yes, pointing out that people hate your race is political suicide lmao.
What's not to love about clown world?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Of course they have culture. That's why you wear a Klan robe in your profile picture.
-->
@thett3
I’m trying to understand the leftist position as much as I can. Identity politics/racial justice/ whatever you want to call it is a very hot subject for the left in America right now but on both sides I mostly see partisan saber rattling instead of discussions on policy. So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
I've affiliated with the democratic party since I could vote. Within several years, I may have to reevaluate my affiliation and might not be a democrat but I haven't given up quite yet. This is mainly because the party has changed significantly in my lifetime, to the point where I'm basically just watching the circus as an informed citizen and no longer have any viable options to vote for in the primary elections. The concept of race is of no concern to me for this matter. Aside from that, I'm aware that the party does not have an exceptional track record in this context. People within living memory have been deeply neglected by Democrats on account of race, and if you can relate to that then you can more easily see how it's tolerable in certain settings for representatives to take that memory into consideration. Since I haven't been kowtowing any political obscurity it is evident that I'm not a leftist, whatever that means.
I would not vote for a candidate that tailors economic redistribution according to anyone's sentiment regarding a racial construct.
- I don't know what you mean by reparations. Reparations for what? I'd entertain reparations between nations and maybe communities, not on the basis of race.
- I don't know what you mean by economic redistribution. State or federal? Subsidies, defense spending, infrastructure? At the federal level I'm primarily interested in national security.
- I'm highly skeptical of so-called "hate speech" in the realm of politics. It's something that could very easily disqualify a candidate.
The issue as it pertains to politics will naturally be resolved when race is not considered for electoral strategy, not counted on any census, and unlawful discrimination is not excused in the courts. I aspire for justice to be brought about within a lifetime of redress. Such approaches have been considered with increasing weight over the years.
Please don't conflate "liberal" with "left" with "Democrat".
-->
@Mesmer
I'm talking about policy for humans. Therefore, that policy needs to take into account human nature.
Policies take into account that which is relevant to the policy itself. Please provide one example of a policy in which an individual’s race should play a role in how the policy applies to them.
What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd."Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, so that's a non-starter: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .
What a ridiculous response.
You got so triggered by the word racist that you completely ignored the point I was making and linked to a whole discussion about the word racist, even though I used the word in the context to explain what others are calling you to criticize your response to it.
Wow.
All you're doing is proving that your argument doesn't have any facts or data.Provide them or concede the point.
I talked about why it’s pointless to go back and forth with you about facts in response to your ask that I provide them to prove systemic racism, something I have not alleged here because it is not the topic of our conversation.
The conversation we are and have been having is whether race should play a role in government policy. That’s primarily a philosophical debate, and one we need to have before we can get into a fact battle regarding systemic racism. Why? Because our philosophical positions will determine how we interpret the facts so it’s pointless to move on without resolving our differences there.
Do you understand?
Does you wife see through this posturing?Sorry, I meant does your waifu anime pillow see through this posturing?
Uh……. God one?
-->
@Double_R
Who do you think the policy is for? Rocks? Aliens on Mars? Imaginary ghosts?I'm talking about policy for humans. Therefore, that policy needs to take into account human nature.There's no point in getting hyper-cerebral and developing policy that isn't for humans.Policies take into account that which is relevant to the policy itself. Please provide one example of a policy in which an individual’s race should play a role in how the policy applies to them.
When the policies get presented to the public, they'll filter it through their tribal biases, primarily their race.
This always happens.
What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd."Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, so that's a non-starter: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .What a ridiculous response.You got so triggered by the word racist that you completely ignored the point I was making and linked to a whole discussion about the word racist, even though I used the word in the context to explain what others are calling you to criticize your response to it.Wow.
Take it easy lol.
"Racist" isn't a valid term, so you shouldn't make it a premise of your argument -- I don't have to defend myself from being accused as "racist" because it's a nonsense term.
Rewrite your question without that loaded, false premise.
Facts and data are not arguments and cannot form conclusions, that requires logic. So it’s pointless to go back and forth with someone on the facts when that person cannot even answer a question so simple as “do you believe the past impacts the present?”.All you're doing is proving that your argument doesn't have any facts or data.Provide them or concede the point.I talked about why it’s pointless to go back and forth with you about facts in response to your ask that I provide them to prove systemic racism, something I have not alleged here because it is not the topic of our conversation.The conversation we are and have been having is whether race should play a role in government policy. That’s primarily a philosophical debate, and one we need to have before we can get into a fact battle regarding systemic racism. Why? Because our philosophical positions will determine how we interpret the facts so it’s pointless to move on without resolving our differences there.
It's an irrelevant tangent to talk about purely theoretical questions involving systemic racism, so your question isn't worth answering. There is a multitude of data/research/studies that you could reference to make the case that the past has impacted the future, in regards to policy involving race, but you've decided to ignore all of it and post a 'what if?' question that doesn't prove your case.
Again, provide an argument proving that systemic racism exists, or else you don't have one lol.
If you want to talk only about "whether race should play a role in government policy", then talk only about that.
Fyi "whether race should play a role in government policy" isn't "primarily a philosophical debate". It's actually a primarily debate about whether you recognize human biology or not, and only becomes a primarily philosophical debate if you choose/accidentally ignore that.
Uh……. God one?
I actually don't count any Gods.
So God zero.
-->
@Mesmer
When the policies get presented to the public, they'll filter it through their tribal biases, primarily their race.This always happens.
Which is completely irrelevant to the question of what government policy should be. But I at least thank you for making it crystal clear that you have no philosophical grounding to anything you argue.
It's an irrelevant tangent to talk about purely theoretical questions involving systemic racism, so your question isn't worth answering.
And proven yet again.
It’s not possible to have a conversation about what anything should be without relying on your core values to ground your position, so it’s awfully telling when someone refuses to discuss their core values.
You don’t really believe your own BS and/or you are not secure enough in them to put them out there. You want to argue your beliefs but you don’t want to defend them.
Again, provide an argument proving that systemic racism exists, or else you don't have one lol.
That’s not the topic of our conversation genius.
-->
@FLRW
this is exactly what im talking about
and no, it isnt a klan robe
-->
@Double_R
When the policies get presented to the public, they'll filter it through their tribal biases, primarily their race.This always happens.Which is completely irrelevant to the question of what government policy should be. But I at least thank you for making it crystal clear that you have no philosophical grounding to anything you argue.
Nope. It's actually the complete opposite.
Race is integral to what policy should be because that's how people primarily vote. It makes zero sense to construct policy whilst being totally blind to the human condition.
Most humans don't give a damn about philosophy, be it because they're too stupid/apathetic/busy to learn some, so most people don't give a damn about "philosophical ground" or whatever term you masturbate to. You're off in the world of forms as most people are blocking up primarily based on race, but also on jobs, religion, nationalism etc.
You're sitting around with your buddies contemplating and arguing the profound philosophical underpinnings of it all, never in total agreement, never having clear direction. Meanwhile, for example, Black people are saying 'we Black yo' and voting based on that. It doesn't matter that they haven't verified the "philosophical ground" upon which they assert "we Black yo". They just assert it, they go vote based on that, and you get smashed at elections every time. They then DEMAND that "we Black yo" policy gets implemented, and because the politicians who got voted in want to keep their voter base happy, "we Black yo" policy gets implemented -- zero consideration for "philosophical grounding".
That's how politics actually works.
It's an irrelevant tangent to talk about purely theoretical questions involving systemic racism, so your question isn't worth answering. There is a multitude of data/research/studies that you could reference to make the case that the past has impacted the future, in regards to policy involving race, but you've decided to ignore all of it and post a 'what if?' question that doesn't prove your case.Fyi "whether race should play a role in government policy" isn't "primarily a philosophical debate". It's actually a primarily debate about whether you recognize human biology or not, and only becomes a primarily philosophical debate if you choose/accidentally ignore that.And proven yet again.It’s not possible to have a conversation about what anything should be without relying on your core values to ground your position, so it’s awfully telling when someone refuses to discuss their core values.You don’t really believe your own BS and/or you are not secure enough in them to put them out there. You want to argue your beliefs but you don’t want to defend them.
You want to talk constantly about abstractions without dealing with human psychology.
You want to talk about "core values" and "philosophical grounding" without dealing with the fact most humans won't vote based on that.
You don't understand politics at all.
Again, provide an argument proving that systemic racism exists, or else you don't have one lol.That’s not the topic of our conversation genius.
Yes, it wasn't until you started making arguments that started to use it as a premise.
Don't make it the topic if you don't want to discuss it.
-->
@Mesmer
That's how politics actually works.
Yes, and our conversation is about policy. Let me know when you actually want to have a conversation about it. Which is strange that I have to request it considering you start entire threads on it, but whatever. Do you.
You want to talk about "core values" and "philosophical grounding" without dealing with the fact most humans won't vote based on that.
Philosophical grounding and core values is what determines how you interpret the facts, assess their value, and apply them to what you believe. It’s what makes debating our respective positions worth the conversation. If all you want to talk about is how to run PR firm you should rephrase your threads accordingly.
You don't understand politics at all.
That’s never been the topic of our conversation.
Yes, it wasn't until you started making arguments that started to use it as a premise.Don't make it the topic if you don't want to discuss it.
Perhaps you would understand the premise of my arguments if you actually engaged in the topic. Turns out it’s pretty easy to twist someone else’s position in your head when all you do is strawman them.
-->
@Double_R
You just don't get it.
Policy is generated through politics. People get mad about stuff, divide into groups and push for things that benefit those groups. They don't care if it's logical/philosophically sound/whatever. Politicians don't care if it's logical/philosophically sound/whatever. People care about getting stuff for their group, and politicians care about looking good and getting re-elected (so they make beneficial policy to the groups who got them in) -- nobody important cares about what you're talking about.
Is there "philosophical grounding" or "core values" for a nurse's union to go on strike for higher wages? What we do know is they're refusing to work unless they are paid more. So, you either negotiate to pay them more or stand your ground and risk a strike. At no stage is there any "philosophical grounding" in any of that. At no stage are "core values" given a damn about. Nurses want more money and the state would prefer if they shut up and worked -- that's all this is about.
Making policy without any regard for politics/human biology is wrong and will never generate any substantial support. In your attempt to be so big brained and have "philosophical grounding" with "core values", you are too ignorant to understand that people in general are too stupid/busy/apathetic to understand the big picture, and instead engage in tribalism of varying flavors. When you attempt to construct policy in a hyper-cerebral way that has no regards for tribalism, nobody cares about what you're talking about. You are playing the wrong game. You are too ignorant for politics.
-->
@Mesmer
They don't care if it's logical/philosophically sound/whatever.
Do you support policy that is not logical? Yes or no?
-->
@Double_R
Before we hyper-focus on this one point, do you agree with everything else I wrote?
-->
@Mesmer
I agree with everything you said in the first paragraph, the next to are full of nonsense.
Your core values are the very thing that ultimately determines your position on anything. If you believe we should raise the minimum wage, at the very least you have to believe that government has a big role to play in ensuring workers are treated fairly.
You do not need to be able to articulate your core values or even be consciously aware of them, they are there whether you know about them or not, whether you understand them or not. That’s why the whole idea of debating is to explore those values as they are tested against someone else’s. So when debating someone who refuses to discuss them, that tells me a lot about the person that I’m dealing with.
Regarding your second paragraph, you claimed that it’s wrong to make policy without regard to politics or biology. We all know that politics plays a role in policy and as a society we damn near unanimously agree that it shouldn’t so I find this to be a very bizarre statement. The fact that politics always plays a role is the very reason people hate and do not trust politicians. When someone says “this is all about politics” they’re literally saying this policy either makes no sense or is not being enacted for valid reasons.
And as far as biology goes, If we’re talking about collective biology, as in all of our biologies then yes, of course it would. But what you’re talking about is splicing up the population along racial lines, determining what differences we can discern, and then base policy off of those differences. And setting aside the fact that you have yet to give a clear example of what that would even look like, the biological differences between us are so small that whatever differences are established would be too insignificant for any policy considerations to even make sense.
I’ve answered your question, now please answer mine.
-->
@Double_R
Your core values are the very thing that ultimately determines your position on anything. If you believe we should raise the minimum wage, at the very least you have to believe that government has a big role to play in ensuring workers are treated fairly.
They're really not though.
People have disadvantages in life. Some people are poor and would do better is they had a higher min wage. So, these min wagers group up and push for higher wages. Some politicians catch wind of these groups and promise min wagers higher min wage if they vote for the polly. Other people push min wage to virtue signal and look morally excellent in front of their circles. Most people don't care about "philosophically grounded" or "core value" ideas. Most people aren't applying Utilitarian theory or Austrian Economics to support their policy advocations. Most people have lizard-brain reasons for supporting the policies they support, or they just ad hoc their reasoning (i.e. use whatever excuse they can to get passed what benefits them).
You do not need to be able to articulate your core values or even be consciously aware of them, they are there whether you know about them or not, whether you understand them or not. That’s why the whole idea of debating is to explore those values as they are tested against someone else’s. So when debating someone who refuses to discuss them, that tells me a lot about the person that I’m dealing with.
The underlined shows an equivocation. If you don't need to be able to articulate them, then how do you debate them? Surely, articulating is a pre-requisite of debating.
If "core values" just means your feelings, I agree with your first sentence because it's true for most people, and thus is how policy/politics work. If "core values" means a cerebral notion that you are able to articulate in debate, then I disagree with you (and you don't even seem to agree with that definition).
People just have a bunch of feelings based on their genes and current situation, these feelings dictate how they respond to policy questions, and that's how they form their policy advocations. This has nothing to do with debate. This has nothing to do with "philosophical grounding" or other purely cerebral notions.
Regarding your second paragraph, you claimed that it’s wrong to make policy without regard to politics or biology. We all know that politics plays a role in policy and as a society we damn near unanimously agree that it shouldn’t so I find this to be a very bizarre statement. The fact that politics always plays a role is the very reason people hate and do not trust politicians. When someone says “this is all about politics” they’re literally saying this policy either makes no sense or is not being enacted for valid reasons.
People might agree that politics shouldn't play a role in policy (not even sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter), but then it does anyway. This is an excellent case of the truth being often seen, rarely heard. Anyone who says this 'politics shouldn't play a role in policy' probably doesn't want to seem like a low IQ brainlet who has lizard-brain reasoning for their political opinions, despite most people having such reasoning.
Yes, it's dumb and primitive, but it's also reality.
And as far as biology goes, If we’re talking about collective biology, as in all of our biologies then yes, of course it would. But what you’re talking about is splicing up the population along racial lines, determining what differences we can discern, and then base policy off of those differences. And setting aside the fact that you have yet to give a clear example of what that would even look like, the biological differences between us are so small that whatever differences are established would be too insignificant for any policy considerations to even make sense.
People splice up along racial lines naturally. You don't have to tell them to do it, they just do it. It's axiomatic.
Since policy is generated through politics (despite people not liking that), race is going to determine policy. To not base policy on race is to base policy on non-humans.
It looks like China where the whole country is geared towards the Chinese genetic mesh (concept of face, copy to respect the master etc.). It looks like Mauritania wherein the whole country is geared towards the Mauritanian genetic mesh (no photography so souls can't be captured, strict Islamic gender roles etc.).
The biological differences are actually so large that merely 100 random SNP gives clear distinctions to super broad racial categories of Asians, Europeans and Africans. Races have naturally different opinions on free speech, collectivism/individualism, authoritarianism/liberalism etc. Racial considerations on policy happen naturally without people thinking about it -- it's just their genetics expressing themselves in an environment.
Do you support policy that is not logical? Yes or no?
This topic of conversation isn't about me lol but I'll answer it anyway.
I support policy that supports my own tribal groups -- that's logical in itself. I don't always think the policy is fair, logically argued for or consistent, but I'll still support it anyway because that's what all successful groups are doing. So to answer your question: yes, I would because it's sometimes logical to support illogical policy, based on tribal groups.
I might change my tune in a majority White country that has the capacity to be a little bit more cerebral and evenhanded, but these multi-racial/multi-cultural countries don't allow you to be that charitable. Africans and Hispanics are a net economic drain on the US, and yet they're still howling for more free stuff/less "systemic racism".
-->
@Mesmer
Most people don't care about "philosophically grounded" or "core value" ideas. Most people aren't applying Utilitarian theory or Austrian Economics to support their policy advocations.
I'm starting to believe you're just trolling, nobody is this thick headed.
The minimum wage point was just an example. That’s all.
If you believe X, then X had to come from somewhere. This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be. Think problem of infinite regress… now imagine the point that comes right before “just because”. That’s the point we are talking about, and it’s different for each of us. Change that and you change everything after it. Understand that point in someone else and you can understand why they hold the world view that they do.
Not complicated, unless you want it to be.
People might agree that politics shouldn't play a role in policy (not even sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter), but then it does anyway.
You: it’s wrong to create policy without regards to politics.
Me: actually, it’s wrong to create policy on the basis of politics, that’s the very reason people hate politicians
You: well politics does play a role
No shit it does play a role, we’re talking about whether it should. Or at least we were, but this is what you do every time you get cornered… retreat back to what does happen as if there is some kind of disagreement about that. There isn’t, you just refuse to talk about anything you actually believe which really makes me wonder why you bother posting on a debate site.
To not base policy on race is to base policy on non-humans.
Race is a subcategory of humans. You do not have to break something up into irrelevant categories in order to make policy about it. This is like arguing that policy on cars must take into account different automakers otherwise it’s not really policy about cars. That’s just stupid.
This topic of conversation isn't about me lol but I'll answer it anyway.
The topic of conversation is about the arguments you are making. In order to understand the argument you are making we need to understand the ideas that sit at the core of your argument (aka core values). The question of whether you believe policy should be logical are very important to understanding what you are trying to say, because as far as I can tell you don’t, which makes things very clear.
I support policy that supports my own tribal groups
Thank you for finally making your position clear. You’re not about what’s best for society, you’re about what’s best for white people.
This is the literal definition of a racist.
-->
@Double_R
If you believe X, then X had to come from somewhere. This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be. Think problem of infinite regress… now imagine the point that comes right before “just because”. That’s the point we are talking about, and it’s different for each of us. Change that and you change everything after it. Understand that point in someone else and you can understand why they hold the world view that they do.Not complicated, unless you want it to be.
Yeah most people never seriously consider anything before the "just because".
People's genes determine a lot of how they vote, and tribal pressures determine most the rest (see the Ashe Conformity Experiment).
People's reasons for why they believe things is pretty much Ad Hoc reasoning most of the time, and when it's not, it usually gets destroyed by tribalistic feelings at the voting booths.
You: it’s wrong to create policy without regards to politics.Me: actually, it’s wrong to create policy on the basis of politics, that’s the very reason people hate politiciansYou: well politics does play a roleNo shit it does play a role, we’re talking about whether it should. Or at least we were, but this is what you do every time you get cornered… retreat back to what does happen as if there is some kind of disagreement about that. There isn’t, you just refuse to talk about anything you actually believe which really makes me wonder why you bother posting on a debate site.
This is like asking: should we tolerate solar flares from the sun?
Lol, as if we currently have the ability to change that.
Let me make this crystal clear: politics will **always** play a role, unless you dramatically change the human brain.
Race is a subcategory of humans. You do not have to break something up into irrelevant categories in order to make policy about it. This is like arguing that policy on cars must take into account different automakers otherwise it’s not really policy about cars. That’s just stupid.
Races are biologically different and require different policy. These categories are very relevant.
For example, races differ on individualism: Population Differences in Individualism – The Alternative Hypothesis .
Another example: races differ in self-control: Racial Differences in Self Control – The Alternative Hypothesis .
When Liberia had essentially the same rules as the US, Liberia didn't become a copy of the US partly because it had a very different racial population to that of the US.
I support policy that supports my own tribal groupsThank you for finally making your position clear. You’re not about what’s best for society, you’re about what’s best for white people.This is the literal definition of a racist.
What is best for society is best for the majority tribal groups. What is best for Nigeria is best for its overwhelming Black majority. What is best for Iran is best for its overwhelming Arab and Muslim majority. This is not purely about White people. "Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .
Now, normally I'd just leave it there, but I've had a few convos with you in the past, and I know how inconsistent you're being here.
You made a thread criticizing "conservatives" for being tribal Theory about conservatives (debateart.com) . You've also made dozens of posts bashing Trump, Fox News and other "conservative" things, and for the most part, I agree with your criticism of them.
However, what you don't do is criticize your own groups to the same degree because you don't understand that you're tribal, too. This is why your positions quickly become super harmful and wrong: you refuse to recognize your own tribal biases that skew your reality. You don't have enough self-awareness to realize you're just as tribal as the people you criticize for being tribal.
I'm honest and open about my tribal biases because I understand myself. You're totally ignorant of your own.
So, you too are not interested about society in the same sense you speak of here. Instead, you're about what is best for your own tribal group(s).
Yeah most people never seriously consider anything before the "just because".
And yet it’s still what determines where we all stand on any issue, so when someone ducks and dodges to avoid talking about it I find that very telling.
Let me make this crystal clear: politics will **always** play a role, unless you dramatically change the human brain.
And let me make this crystal clear: This isn’t a campaign office, it’s a debate site. Defending your values is kind of the point.
You literally started a thread asking what should be done about race in America while refusing to talk about basic values. That’s absurd.
Now, normally I'd just leave it there, but I've had a few convos with you in the past, and I know how inconsistent you're being here.……what you don't do is criticize your own groups to the same degree because you don't understand that you're tribal, too.
My views clearly align with the political left, that’s not what tribalism means. Tribalism is when you place your tribe ahead of your core values, or when your core values essentially are your tribe.
Objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing.
Bias and tribalism are not the same thing.
The demonstration of bias is hypocrisy. The demonstration of tribalism is overt hypocrisy. For example when one supports impeaching a president for lying about a blow job but considers it a sham to impeach another president for attempting to extort a foreign nation into investigating his political opponent, or when one attacks a president for a declining cognitive state while giving a pass to another president who thought it would be a good idea to nuke a hurricane or that clean coal means you grab a piece of coal and scrub it with a brush… that’s tribalism.
Hypocrisy exists on both sides, but it is no where near as blatant and as absurd on the left as it is on the right. That’s why I call it out on the right but don’t bother much with the left. I wouldn’t argue that I’m not biased because we all are. Tribal? No, not even close. I don’t even identify with a tribe, so I find that to be an absurd allegation.
-->
@Double_R
Yeah most people never seriously consider anything before the "just because".And yet it’s still what determines where we all stand on any issue, so when someone ducks and dodges to avoid talking about it I find that very telling.
You realize your response agrees with the argument I'm making, that most people never seriously anything before the "just because?"
If this is the case, then policy doesn't and won't be based on your ultra cerebral notions, and instead (what I've argued) largely people's tribal feelings.
So, thanks for finally agreeing with me (although I suspect this was an accident on your behalf).
Let me make this crystal clear: politics will **always** play a role, unless you dramatically change the human brain.And let me make this crystal clear: This isn’t a campaign office, it’s a debate site. Defending your values is kind of the point.You literally started a thread asking what should be done about race in America while refusing to talk about basic values. That’s absurd.
Just in case you didn't realize, Debateart doesn't actually have all the people in the world as active members. The people here have gone out of their way to have cerebral discussions about politics -- absolutely not the average type of person (which you've already agreed with), and absolutely not an accurate cross-section of the general public due to low sample size, too.
This isn't about me defending my personal values or really anyone on here defending theirs. This is about determining how policy gets made in the real world.
The question we were actually discussing previously was: 'should race have an impact on policy?' You've now decided to (not so) sneakily change the question to 'what should be done about race in America?' The former has politics **always** having an impact on policy, which you seem to have conceded now. The latter implies there is policy which could be implemented to deal with the fact race always has an impact on policy, and thus it needs to be dealt with.
If you want to discuss the latter instead of the former, I'm happy to do that.
Race is a subcategory of humans. You do not have to break something up into irrelevant categories in order to make policy about it. This is like arguing that policy on cars must take into account different automakers otherwise it’s not really policy about cars. That’s just stupid.Races are biologically different and require different policy. These categories are very relevant.For example, races differ on individualism: Population Differences in Individualism – The Alternative Hypothesis .Another example: races differ in self-control: Racial Differences in Self Control – The Alternative Hypothesis .When Liberia had essentially the same rules as the US, Liberia didn't become a copy of the US partly because it had a very different racial population to that of the US.[no response]
You didn't respond to any of this, so I'll assume that you conceded it.
My views clearly align with the political left, that’s not what tribalism means.
You've clearly repeatedly attacked 'the political right' whilst hardly ever (if at all) attacked 'the political left'. You're functionally tribally leftwing. Yes, your views align with 'the political left', but it's also true that you're tribally leftwing.
You're just proving my point that you're totally ignorant of your own tribal biases -- that's quite dangerous to think you're above it all when you're not.
The demonstration of bias is hypocrisy. The demonstration of tribalism is overt hypocrisy.
You routinely attack rightwing people/groups/ideas whilst almost never attacking leftwing people/groups/ideas. So, even by this standard (which I'm not even sure is correct), you're biased and tribalistic by your own words LOL.
Saying the odd token "there is bias on both sides" whilst never thoroughly or shallowly expressing the bias of the left, yet pretty much always bashing the right, is just fake virtue-signaling and further proves how tribal you are.
Hypocrisy exists on both sides, but it is no where near as blatant and as absurd on the left as it is on the right. That’s why I call it out on the right but don’t bother much with the left.
Lol no you don't.
Can you quote like any post wherein you've criticized the left for obvious hypocrisy? Even if you did, there's likely dozens of posts criticizing rightwing stuff for every one of your criticizing leftwing stuff.
Your words are at odds with your actions. You are just as tribal as the people you criticize.