[MD] Platt's race question

Tue Aug 28 16:55:53 PDT 2007

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> So the black is hired because of his skin color, not his competence?
> 
> [Arlo]
> No, competent blacks are awarded some advantage to compensate for the 
> otherwise disadvantegous, racially-biased playing field that exists. 
> Its not a perfect solution, but until the xenophobic idiocy of "race" 
> is dismissed once and for all, its a necessary evil. And that's where 
> we are. Call me when this changes.

Yes, we know you have the patronizing attitude that blacks are 
victims unable to fend for themselves and must have whitey's "help."

> [Arlo had said]
> No, the original claims was yours, that "blacks" step to the front 
> of  the line more often than they are denied opportunity. Let's see 
> some evidence.
> 
> [Platt]
> Affirmative action laws. You just suggested above that such laws were 
> effective.
> 
> [Arlo]
> What evidence do you have that "affirmative action laws" push more 
> blacks to the front of the line, than our racial society denies them 
> opportunity? And I'm not sure I'd say these laws are "effective", as 
> we still are obviously dealing with a lot of xenophobic morons, but 
> until all people are judged solely by their competence.... er, strik 
> that, judged by whether or not they are a _good_ person, I see no 
> recourse but to support these laws.

Yes, we know. The other recourse is to treat blacks like other people
of goodwill -- as equals. But then you would get no moral authority or credit 
when blacks independently succeed on their own. 

> [Platt]
> Geez, on top of everything else you're a postmodernist who believes 
> it's a fact there are no facts?
> 
> [Arlo]
> And I roast children on open spits! Actually, one could make a strong 
> argument for Pirsig being a "postmodernist". So I am happy to be in that camp.

That's what I said. You are in the postmodernist camp that advances its own
concept of truth while simultaneously denying there is such a thing. 

> 
> "The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of 
> freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the church, has 
> tended to invent a myth of independence from the social level for its 
> own benefit. Science and reason, this myth goes, come only from the 
> objective world, never from the social world. The world of objects 
> imposes itself upon the mind with no social mediation whatsoever. It 
> is easy to see the historic reasons for this myth of independence. 
> Science might never have survived without it. But a close examination 
> shows it isn't so." (Pirsig)
> 
> I agree.

Nowhere does Pirsig suggest that certain societies are free of the effects
of gravity or earthquakes. The language may be different but the results are
the same. 

> [Platt]
> Of course. Qualified scientists always seek to support hatred. Yeah, right.
> 
> [Arlo]
> No, "qualified scientists" operate within the paradigm they accept. 
> Many "qualified scientists" argued (continue to argue) that the world 
> is flat.

Name the qualified scientists who continue to argue the world is flat.

> Many "qualified scientists" argued back in Plato's day that 
> the world was composed of "fire" or "change" or "atoms" or whatever. 
> Many in Nazi Germany argued that science proved the inferiority of the Jews.

What's your point? That scientists can make mistakes? Scientists can support
a political agenda? I agree. Global warming is a great example.   

 [Platt]
> Why don't you tell that to Wikipedia? If you want to bury your head 
> in sand it's your problem, not the problem of "us all".
> 
> [Arlo]
> I don't take Wikipedia, nor any other singular source, as the end-all 
> word on anything. I can tell you that years of reading sociological, 
> psychological, anthropological and socio-cultural studies indicate 
> far more evidence that the embodiment of fear is socially 
> constructed. Now, you may argue that "fear", like "love" or "joy" or 
> "sadness" are hardwired human emotions. Perhaps I might agree to let 
> that stand. But the embodiment of these emotions, what we love, what 
> we fear, what makes us happy, what makes us sad, are derived from 
> social-cultural assimilation. Of course, personal experience is part 
> of that, someone bitten by a dog may develop a fear of dogs, but 
> general fears are created and transmitted by social custom, language, 
> and structure. That you "fear" may be genetic., that you "fear 
> blacks" is the result of ideological propaganda and a racial-oriented 
> society that seeks scapegoats in the "other".

You accept the science that supports you agenda but reject the science
that doesn't. I see no difference between your "evidence" and mine.

> [Platt]
> Oh. So now Ham and I are "evil," like all who believe in and want to 
> protect individual freedom.
> 
> [Arlo]
> No, you are evil for your continued use of distortive and vile 
> rhetoric.

Now your use "inane dichotomies" you constantly preach against.  

> Ham is simply wrong (in my opinion), and while may stroke 
> the "individual" incessantly, I would not call Ham evil at all, just 
> a guy with a different metaphysical base. I find him somewhat 
> arrogant about music, but then I'm sure I come across arrogant about 
> my love of the Sex Pistols.
> 
> And here, as if on perfect cue, is another wonderful illustration of 
> that evil, moronic rhetoiric, "all who believe in and want to protect 
> individual freedom". Yep, I think all people who believe in 
> individual freedom are evil, Platt. You nailed it. Just me and my 
> big, bad "lib" plot to enslave the world. Damn you freedom loving 
> conservatives for spoiling my nefarious agenda!

Your attack on individualism is self-evident. And you put words in my 
mouth never said. Talk about vile and despicable rhetoric. 

> [Arlo on using sarcasm]
> Highlights the vulgarity and despicable nature of your rhetoric. 
> But  you're likely right, I probably don't need to do it, since it is 
> rather self-evident.
> 
> [Platt]
> So don't.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Don't say moronic things like you just did above and I won't have to.

Why do you "have to" if it's self-evident? Sometimes, Arlo, you really
are hilarious.

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/