[MD] Platt's race question

[Arlo Bensinger]

I reply, cautiously, just to answer a few points.

[Platt]
What I emphasize which you apparently are completely blind to are the 
people of competence, regardless of color, who, because of their 
competence, overcome all obstacles and become successful.

[Arlo]
When did I say such things _never_ occur. But I think, based on my 
humble observations in the real world, that the incidences of 
"competent blacks" being denied opportunity because of the color of 
their skin far outnumbers the cases where "competency" alone 
overcomes racial barriers.

I also dispute the idea that xenophobia is "human nature". Rather 
than looking at people who have overcome "fear" as being somehow 
exceptional, I believe instead the people who continue to pander to 
racial fear to be deceived by ideological propaganda.

[Platt]
What I think is wrong is to assume that any adult group needs my help 
or yours to be successful. That simply patronizing and insulting.

[Arlo]
Well, that's the right-wing schtick. But the reality is that many 
individuals belonging to these "groups" do face prejudice and lack of 
opportunity that can prevent them from becoming successful without 
good people stepping in and ensuring that "competence" is truly the 
only measure of success in any endeavor. When you can tell me that 
any woman, of any color, can buy any house, and her success in doing 
so has nothing to do with the pigment in her skin, then I will tell 
you the time for "racial preferences" is past.

This is not "patronizing", nor "insulting", but recognition of the 
prejudice and xenophobia that places unfair barriers around many.

[Platt]
Sure, there are certain situations where your helping someone can 
give them a hand out of a temporary bad situation. But the risks 
inherent in huge bureaucratic welfare programs are 1) 
creating  dependency, 2) enabling destructive behavior, and 3) 
building resentment among those being "helped" due to the 
patronizing, holier-than-thou attitude of do-gooders.

[Arlo]
I'm going to have to come up with a name for this. "Feigned 
obliviousness", perhaps. We had many conversations about "welfare" in 
the past, and I've been the first to suggest that there are abuses 
and unintended consequences in the present system. And these need to 
be addressed and the system needs serious reform. But I find nothing 
"immoral", indeed I find it moral and beneficial, for society to 
create and implement a safety net to ensure that those hit by hard 
situations have access to support while the rebuild, reorient and 
find new labor.

[Platt]
Very few people find satisfaction in being "needy." Consequently, to 
restore their sense of control,  they find many creative ways to game 
the system.  Haven't you been reading any of SA's posts?

[Arlo]
No, there is no satisfaction in being poor, and a loss of agency is 
always accompanied by shame and depression. But rather than vilify 
the poor for being "lazy and stupid", I prefer to scaffold them until 
they are in a position to reclaim their agency. There is truly no 
shame in finding oneself in dire straits. Even the best of people can 
find themselves suddenly without labor, without insurance, and their 
life-savings gone. Working to get these people back on their feet, 
and autonomous again, should be the goal of the social safety net.

[Platt]
... a civil tongue is obviously not one of your strong points.

[Arlo]
You are the only one here who could accuse me of this. And no, I lack 
the desire to be civil when confronted with ongoing distortions and 
deceptive rhetoric at every turn.

Now are we done?