[MD] Platt's race question

[Ant McWatt]

Platt stated August 24th:

Intellectuals pay lip service to racism being evil, but then support racial 
discrimination with race-based results in multiculturism and affirmative 
action. All attempts to end such social patterns based on skin color in 
order to progress towards a color blind society are roundly denounced -- a 
far cry from the MOQ goal of a morality based on intellectual principles of 
individual freedom, equal protection under the law, and advancement by merit 
-- not gender, class or color.


Ant McWatt comments:

Platt,

Firstly, you have (yet again) put that weasel word “individual” in the 
phrase “a far cry from the MOQ goal of a morality based on intellectual 
principles of individual freedom”.  However, part of the remit in the MOQ 
(being a Zen Buddhist derived philosophy) is to remind us that the concept 
of “individual” is a convenient fiction that needs to be recognised as such 
to reduce karmic suffering.  It should therefore be avoided in the context 
of the MOQ and used only with qualification.   See Steve Hagen’s 1997 book 
“Buddhism Made Simple” for more details (which, of course, is the book 
described by Pirsig as being the closest Buddhist text in outlook to the 
MOQ).

Secondly, as a pragmatic philosophy, the MOQ implies that multi-culturalism 
and
affirmative action will be necessary in a given society until the colour of 
one’s skin becomes meaningless at the social level.  For instance, having 
recruitment policies that encourage minorities to apply to social level 
services such as the police to ensure that the latter accurately reflect (in 
their staff composition) the actual composition of minorities in a 
community.  It’s a bit simple-minded to think that these type of 
intellectually guided corrections are racist in themselves as such policies 
are correcting an imbalance where intellectuals and others are not treating 
criminals equally, in the first place, because of the suspicion of existing 
institutional racism in such services as the police and judiciary (for 
instance, see the illustration below of the Rodney King case below).


“I think I figured out why the L.A. riots occurred. Did you guys see these 
cops testifying, man? Did these guys have balls or what, man? These guys 
carry their balls in a wheelbarrow, man. ‘‘Scuse me, ‘scuse me. Man with big 
balls is here to testify.’

‘Place your right testicle on the bible.’  BOOOM!

(This guy [is] Officer Coon [of the LAPD] …is life too fucking weird or 
what?)

Officer Coon looks in the camera and actually says: ‘Oh, that Rodney King 
beating tape, it’s all in how you look at it.’

The courtroom murmurs: ‘Jesus, what balls. I’ve never seen balls of this 
magnitude. He must have a specially fitted uniform in which to place these 
large testicles.’ ‘That’s incredible. All in how you look at it, Officer 
Coon?’

‘That’s right. It’s how you look at the tape.’

‘Well would you care to tell the court how you’re looking at that?’

‘Yeah, okay, sure. It’s how you look at it. For instance, if you play it 
backwards, you see us help King up and send him on his way.’”

Platt’s fellow Talk Radio parrots on the jury:

"Mmm . . . not guilty."

Court usher:

"'Scuse me, 'scuse me. Man with big balls has just been acquitted."


Bill Hicks on “Arizona Bay”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCxpSmVQIWU



.

_________________________________________________________________
Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live -  
http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk