On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 1:10:16 PM UTC+2, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:

> No, Eeyore, it exposes you in a rather harsh light. Bob has lived there. He's seen what's going on. You haven't. Why don't you go on a fact-finding tour of Missouri and find out for yourself? And while you're at it, you might find something positive to say about the 61 million people of various ethnicities who live on the other side of the English Channel. If you do, it'll be a first.
>
TBH I have spent some time in Missouri back in the nineties.

On 8/12/2021 3:20 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:32:03 AM UTC+2, Bob Harper wrote:
>
>> while we have serious societal problems which
>> have too great an effect on racial minorities, these are not, in the
>> main, caused by 'white racism', but rather principally by pathologies
>> within those communities
>>
> it's about the hundredth time you wrote this on RMCR. Reiteration doesn't make it any better.

For God's sake, Herman, he was ASKED for his views.

I know you live in a bubble where this counts as a highly satisfying truth, but saying it outside that closed dittosphere circle exposes it to a rather harsh light.
>

In article <49969324-3eba-49bd-ad13-8228f918455an@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Clarke <andrewclarke437@gmail.com> wrote:
>I did once ask Todd if he'd considered working as a volunteer in
>one of the academies and free schools that are doing such great
>work in the most depressed and dangerous areas of black urban
>America. Oh no, he replied, that would be condescension.

You have quite a creative memory. I can't even imagine to what
interaction this might refer. I've spent many, many hours volunteering
in schools in Title-I (a US Federal designation) areas.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-7, Owen wrote:
> This may have appeared here before, but I just read through this
> well-written, but obviously controversial article (in two parts):
>
> <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-1?wallit_nosession=1>
>
> ...and part 2:
>
> <https://www.city-journal.org/classical-music-under-racial-attack-part-2?wallit_nosession=1>
>
> It's quite long, but here is a sample paragraph about the "lies" that
> "classical music is inherently racist" (from part 2):
>
> "As the lies about classical music accumulate, not one conductor,
> soloist, or concertmaster has rebutted them. These influential
> performers know that Beethoven’s late piano sonatas and quartets are not
> about race but about pushing beyond ordinary human experience into an
> unexplored universe of unsettling silences and space. They know that
> Schubert’s song cycles are not about race but about yearning,
> disappointment, and fleeting joy. They know that the Saint Matthew
> Passion is not about race but about crushing sorrow that cries out in
> pain before finally finding consolation. To reduce everything in human
> experience to the ever more tedious theme of alleged racial oppression
> is narcissism. This music is not about you or me. It is about something
> grander than our narrow, petty selves. But narcissism, the signal
> characteristic of our time, is shrinking our cultural inheritance to a
> nullity."
>
> -Owen

Concerning the politicization of classical music in these times, isn't Knappertsbusch's comment after the war appropriate?:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fanfare/LSwcAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22first%20return%20concert%22%20%22reich%20is%20over%22%20knappertsbusch

On 8/12/21 12:20 AM, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:32:03 AM UTC+2, Bob Harper wrote:
>
>> while we have serious societal problems which
>> have too great an effect on racial minorities, these are not, in the
>> main, caused by 'white racism', but rather principally by pathologies
>> within those communities
>>
> it's about the hundredth time you wrote this on RMCR. Reiteration doesn't make it any better. I know you live in a bubble where this counts as a highly satisfying truth, but saying it outside that closed dittosphere circle exposes it to a rather harsh light.
>
The fact that it is true seems not to have occurred to you. Read a bit
of Thomas Swell to enli9ghten yoourself.

Bob Harper

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:03:36 PM UTC+2, Bob Harper wrote:

> >
> The fact that it is true seems not to have occurred to you. Read a bit
> of Thomas Søwell to enlighten yoourself.
>
> Bob Harper

Ah, the man who tastefully compared talking about pervasive racism to Goebbels propaganda, you have mentioned him often. He's also the guy who thinks, against all evidence, that gun control would increase gun violence, isn't he?

On 8/12/2021 3:55 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:03:36 PM UTC+2, Bob Harper wrote:
>
>>>
>> The fact that it is true seems not to have occurred to you. Read a bit
>> of Thomas Søwell to enlighten yoourself.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Ah, the man who tastefully compared talking about pervasive racism to Goebbels propaganda, you have mentioned him often. He's also the guy who thinks, against all evidence, that gun control would increase gun violence, isn't he?
>

By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please. Regarding gun control and gun violence, what evidence are you referring to? Surely, countries that have no guns have no gun violence (except that perpetrated by government). But In the U.S. how do you propose to seriously reduce the number of guns owned by it's citizens? Magic? Midnight raids into every home? What exactly? The evidence here is that cities with the most strict gun controls do, in fact, have the most gun violence..

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please. Regarding gun control and gun violence, what evidence are you referring to? Surely, countries that have no guns have no gun violence (except that perpetrated by government). But In the U.S. how do you propose to seriously reduce the number of guns owned by it's citizens? Magic? Midnight raids into every home? What exactly? The evidence here is that cities with the most strict gun controls do, in fact, have the most gun violence.

A classic of the "I'll defend by attacking the contrary but try my hardest to not appear to agree with it" variety.

Say it out loud: you think more guns will reduce gun violence? You think someone who says so is worth respect?
Go ahead and point me to your source showing that cities with the strictest gun control have the most violence. And the one that offers your brilliant arrangement of cause and effect. It takes a staggering intellect to find a way to imagine that gun violence is the result of low supply of legal guns- or perhaps it is assault weapons that we need more of- is that it?

And the notion that nations without guns suffer gun violence at the hands of their government is pure right-wing hysteria. Can you point to a single advanced democracy where this suggestion holds water? (Go ahead, argue that we are closer to a third world country than other world democratic economies- that should be interesting.)

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> Michael, I grew up in SE Missouri (Charleston, to be exact) in the '50s
> and '60s. There was REAL, OPEN racism then--for example, my high school
> was not fully integrated until after I graduated in 1966. My father, one
> of the few Republicans in town, lost his bid for election to the local
> school board precisely because he was considered...."unreliable" on the
> subject of race (i.e., he was not a segregationist).
>
> That has all changed, and while we have serious societal problems which
> have too great an effect on racial minorities, these are not, in the
> main, caused by 'white racism', but rather principally by pathologies
> within those communities,

Followed up to there, "pathologies"- that's an interesting formulation. Anything specific you want to point to?

exacerbated by race hustlers like Ibram Kendi.
> Al Sharpton, et al who have a vested interest in convincing minorities
> that they are victims who lack agency, and thus must follow the
> aforementioned 'leaders' to get their 'fair share' of what the world has
> to offer.

So somwhere along the route where we could document systematic racism in the 50s and 60 to now, it's all just went away and the problem now is minorities wanting things they aren't entitled to? Is that a fair summary? Forget your negative portrayal of minority activists. That seems like small fry compared to this idea that hundreds of years of racist practices, beliefs and culture just disappeared at some point. But if you believe it happened, what were the causes? I mean, there are clear market forces that make societal change risky for power holders, but you think people just embraced change and said "we were wrong".

As for biography, I grew up hearing people say "nigger" in Texas of the 80s (and they barely knew what to make of Jews). So again, where do think enlightened non-racism firmly settled in all 50 states?

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:03:33 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 3:55 PM, Herman wrote:
>
> >
> By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please.

"It [i.e. systemic racism] really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses," answered Sowell, who added that the currency of the phrase reminds him of the "propaganda tactics" of Nazi Germany, where Sowell claimed that if a lie was "repeated long enough and loud enough" it would be widely believed.

Sowell said this on a Fox News show, in late 2020, which makes it extra interesting since this was the time that under Sowell's very nose Trump was publicly preparing the Big Lie about the election being rigged if it didn't go for him.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:13:01 AM UTC+2, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:03:33 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 8/12/2021 3:55 PM, Herman wrote:
> >
> > >
> > By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please.
> "It [i.e. systemic racism] really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses," answered Sowell, who added that the currency of the phrase reminds him of the "propaganda tactics" of Nazi Germany, where Sowell claimed that if a lie was "repeated long enough and loud enough" it would be widely believed.
>
> Sowell said this on a Fox News show, in late 2020, which makes it extra interesting since this was the time that under Sowell's very nose Trump was publicly preparing the Big Lie about the election being rigged if it didn't go for him.
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning

Trump's Big Lie did not bother Sowell at all however, since Sowell's also saying that a Biden win would signal the point of no return for the USA. In other words, he was in with the Jan 6 people.

[i.e. systemic racism] really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses,

The connection he choses to draw to Nazis is just another pathetic, sclerotic example of right-wingers comparing social movements they don't like to the apparatus of totalitarian states. It may capture their heightened emotional distress at losing power, but as an analogue, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a second.

The audience demands at Fox News are absolutely clear. The message must be one that there is absolutely no culpability on the part of its audience, and racism is a phantasm dreamed up by irritating minorities.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 5:17:26 PM UTC-5, Herman wrote:
> Trump's Big Lie did not bother Sowell at all however, since Sowell's also saying that a Biden win would signal the point of no return for the USA. In other words, he was in with the Jan 6 people.

Every accusation is a confession. They are the ones pushing for a "point of no return" because they loath the inconveniences of democracy and sharing space with the people they hate and would gleefully destroy their own traditions, institutions, or even other Republicans as long as they could blame someone else for their actions and have the power they crave.

On 8/12/2021 4:13 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please. Regarding gun control and gun violence, what evidence are you referring to? Surely, countries that have no guns have no gun violence (except that perpetrated by government). But In the U.S. how do you propose to seriously reduce the number of guns owned by it's citizens? Magic? Midnight raids into every home? What exactly? The evidence here is that cities with the most strict gun controls do, in fact, have the most gun violence.
>
> A classic of the "I'll defend by attacking the contrary but try my hardest to not appear to agree with it" variety.
>
> Say it out loud: you think more guns will reduce gun violence? You think someone who says so is worth respect?

There you go again. And again. And again. Demanding that I share an opinion of my own when I question someone else's logic and/or data. For all you know I agree with him, but not with the argument.

> Go ahead and point me to your source showing that cities with the strictest gun control have the most violence.

And the one that offers your brilliant arrangement of cause and effect. It takes a staggering intellect to find a way to imagine that gun violence is the result of low supply of legal guns- or perhaps it is assault weapons that we need more of- is that it?
>
> And the notion that nations without guns suffer gun violence at the hands of their government is pure right-wing hysteria. Can you point to a single advanced democracy where this suggestion holds water? (Go ahead, argue that we are closer to a third world country than other world democratic economies- that should be interesting.)
>

As always, you assign opinions to me that I did not aver. I did not say that increasing the number of guns would reduce gun violence. I said that strict gun controls do not appear to reduce gun violence in places where there are a lot of guns and there is poverty and disadvantage. Perhaps you are aware of gun crime in Chicago and Baltimore. Those are places with strict gun control and high gun crime. I did not say the high gun crime is a result of there not being more guns.

I really don't understand why it's not OK for me to ask Herman to cite evidence but it's OK for you to demand that I do so.

On 8/12/21 1:26 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
>> Michael, I grew up in SE Missouri (Charleston, to be exact) in the '50s
>> and '60s. There was REAL, OPEN racism then--for example, my high school
>> was not fully integrated until after I graduated in 1966. My father, one
>> of the few Republicans in town, lost his bid for election to the local
>> school board precisely because he was considered...."unreliable" on the
>> subject of race (i.e., he was not a segregationist).
>>
>> That has all changed, and while we have serious societal problems which
>> have too great an effect on racial minorities, these are not, in the
>> main, caused by 'white racism', but rather principally by pathologies
>> within those communities,
>
> Followed up to there, "pathologies"- that's an interesting formulation. Anything specific you want to point to?

Yes, illegitimacy. The percentage of out-of-wedlock births for
non-Hispanic whites is 21.9 percent, but for non-Hispanic blacks it’s
69.3 percent. For Hispanics it’s 41.6 percent, and for American Indians
59.3 percent. For Asians and Pacific Islanders overall the number is
15.6 percent, but this varies from 51.1 percent for Hawaiians to 6.4
percent and 9.7 percent for Chinese and Japanese Americans, respectively.
......
But it hasn’t always been this way. In 1940, the black illegitimacy rate
was 19 percent, less than what it is for whites now.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, no right-wing fanatic, identified the problem
here:
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/moynihan-report-1965/

The rates today are too high for all groups, but for black Americans it
is a disaster. The cause: In the main, Lyndon Johnson's 'War on
Poverty/Great Society', which by making fathers superfluous, went a long
way toward destroying the black family, the effects of which we see in
our country today.
>
> exacerbated by race hustlers like Ibram Kendi.
>> Al Sharpton, et al who have a vested interest in convincing minorities
>> that they are victims who lack agency, and thus must follow the
>> aforementioned 'leaders' to get their 'fair share' of what the world has
>> to offer.
>
> So somwhere along the route where we could document systematic racism in the 50s and 60 to now, it's all just went away and the problem now is minorities wanting things they aren't entitled to?Nonsense, and you know it.
Is that a fair summary?
No, it is not.
Forget your negative portrayal of minority activists. That seems like
small fry compared to this idea that hundreds of years of racist
practices, beliefs and culture just disappeared at some point.
I did not say they did, but they have been greatly attenuated, and I
think you know that as well.
But if you believe it happened, what were the causes? I mean, there are
clear market forces that make societal change risky for power holders,
but you think people just embraced change and said "we were wrong".
>
> As for biography, I grew up hearing people say "nigger" in Texas of the 80s (and they barely knew what to make of Jews). So again, where do think enlightened non-racism firmly settled in all 50 states?
I don't think that 'enlightened non-racism' has firmly settled in all 50
states, but I do think that openly racist behavior, especially by
whites, has been so thoroughly discredited and condemned that it is not
high on the list of our problems, even though when it appears it
deserves swift sanction, as do, say, anti-Semitic acts and statements by
blacks (to put my hand squarely on a third rail).

But enough for now. Fire away, gents.

Bob Harper
>

On 8/12/2021 4:26 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
>> Michael, I grew up in SE Missouri (Charleston, to be exact) in the '50s
>> and '60s. There was REAL, OPEN racism then--for example, my high school
>> was not fully integrated until after I graduated in 1966. My father, one
>> of the few Republicans in town, lost his bid for election to the local
>> school board precisely because he was considered...."unreliable" on the
>> subject of race (i.e., he was not a segregationist).
>>
>> That has all changed, and while we have serious societal problems which
>> have too great an effect on racial minorities, these are not, in the
>> main, caused by 'white racism', but rather principally by pathologies
>> within those communities,
>
> Followed up to there, "pathologies"- that's an interesting formulation. Anything specific you want to point to?
>
> exacerbated by race hustlers like Ibram Kendi.
>> Al Sharpton, et al who have a vested interest in convincing minorities
>> that they are victims who lack agency, and thus must follow the
>> aforementioned 'leaders' to get their 'fair share' of what the world has
>> to offer.
>
> So somwhere along the route where we could document systematic racism in the 50s and 60 to now, it's all just went away and the problem now is minorities wanting things they aren't entitled to? Is that a fair summary? Forget your negative portrayal of minority activists. That seems like small fry compared to this idea that hundreds of years of racist practices, beliefs and culture just disappeared at some point. But if you believe it happened, what were the causes? I mean, there are clear market forces that make societal change risky for power holders, but you think people just embraced change and said "we were wrong".
>
> As for biography, I grew up hearing people say "nigger" in Texas of the 80s (and they barely knew what to make of Jews). So again, where do think enlightened non-racism firmly settled in all 50 states?
>

Be careful. You are on a path that is likely to end up with your apologizing for over the top rhetoric (again).

You have distorted Bob's arguement egregiously, as you are wont to do.

He did not say that systemic racism suddenlt disappeared. He said it is less now than formerly. As is non-systemic racism, I might add.
He did not denigrate all minority activists. If you call Al Sharpton Ibram Kendi hustlers a thousand times, you have not denigrated all minority activists. You have denigrated exactly two. If you think it's fair to generalize from that there is something wrong with you. In fact, if you don't think they are hustlers there is something wrong with you. I know what it is; it's wokeness.

On 8/12/2021 6:12 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:03:33 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 3:55 PM, Herman wrote:
>>
>>>
>> By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please.
>
> "It [i.e. systemic racism] really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses," answered Sowell, who added that the currency of the phrase reminds him of the "propaganda tactics" of Nazi Germany, where Sowell claimed that if a lie was "repeated long enough and loud enough" it would be widely believed.
>

We can all agree that laws that discriminate explicitly against minorities are examples of "systemic racism." Those are are a think of the past. The racism that remains is elusive to identify and to measure. That was his point. Yelling about systemic racism when it can't be identified is propaganda. The analogy he made is appropriate.

> Sowell said this on a Fox News show, in late 2020, which makes it extra interesting since this was the time that under Sowell's very nose Trump was publicly preparing the Big Lie about the election being rigged if it didn't go for him.
>

Totally irrelevant.

> https://www.foxnews.com/media/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning
>

On 8/12/2021 6:17 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:13:01 AM UTC+2, Herman wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:03:33 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2021 3:55 PM, Herman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> By all means, Herman, tell us exactly what Sowell said re: racism and Goebbels. Please.
>> "It [i.e. systemic racism] really has no meaning that can be specified and tested in the way that one tests hypotheses," answered Sowell, who added that the currency of the phrase reminds him of the "propaganda tactics" of Nazi Germany, where Sowell claimed that if a lie was "repeated long enough and loud enough" it would be widely believed.
>>
>> Sowell said this on a Fox News show, in late 2020, which makes it extra interesting since this was the time that under Sowell's very nose Trump was publicly preparing the Big Lie about the election being rigged if it didn't go for him.
>>
>> https://www.foxnews.com/media/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning
>
> Trump's Big Lie did not bother Sowell at all however, since Sowell's also saying that a Biden win would signal the point of no return for the USA. In other words, he was in with the Jan 6 people.
>

There is no logic in that statement. You have zero idea what Sowell thought about Trunmp's "big lie" or Jan 6. The remark is slanderous, or libelous, which ever applies.

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 2:01:51 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> >
> We can all agree that laws that discriminate explicitly against minorities are examples of "systemic racism." Those are are a think of the past.

Who are |"we"? You and Bob, the two lonely rightwingers here, who routinely defend racism and violence and, at the same time, deny they do, patting each other on the back?

It's one of your routine techniques defending the collapsing status quo, whether it's white privilege or the right to consume the human race to extinction. You redefine, deny and correct. We're all getting on in years but virtually all of your posting history by now is telling people they are wrong, usually by first misrepresenting what they were saying and then taking it apart. It's a way of passing time, and I assume you enjoy it hugely, especially the part where you're saying you have no dog in whatever fight, you're just a ABD (a non-existent degree if you have been out of school for decades, but never mind) you're virtually a PhD, and btw are we aware economics is a science, I assume you're typing your stuff wearing a white lab coat, and no, this is not slander, just an indication that we're not taking this is a seriously as you do.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:44:12 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 8/12/21 1:26 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:32:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> >> Michael, I grew up in SE Missouri (Charleston, to be exact) in the '50s
> >> and '60s. There was REAL, OPEN racism then--for example, my high school
> >> was not fully integrated until after I graduated in 1966. My father, one
> >> of the few Republicans in town, lost his bid for election to the local
> >> school board precisely because he was considered...."unreliable" on the
> >> subject of race (i.e., he was not a segregationist).
> >>
> >> That has all changed, and while we have serious societal problems which
> >> have too great an effect on racial minorities, these are not, in the
> >> main, caused by 'white racism', but rather principally by pathologies
> >> within those communities,
> >
> > Followed up to there, "pathologies"- that's an interesting formulation. Anything specific you want to point to?
> Yes, illegitimacy. The percentage of out-of-wedlock births for
> non-Hispanic whites is 21.9 percent, but for non-Hispanic blacks it’s
> 69.3 percent. For Hispanics it’s 41.6 percent, and for American Indians
> 59.3 percent. For Asians and Pacific Islanders overall the number is
> 15.6 percent, but this varies from 51.1 percent for Hawaiians to 6.4
> percent and 9.7 percent for Chinese and Japanese Americans, respectively.

Oh, I get it your gist. But you seem to be playing with words. You talk about "communities", then cite statistics organized by race. It appears the only "communities" you imagine here are those of race alone, as if certain people are bound together by anything more than oppression and prejudice. Where race is concerned, there is no real community besides a negative, defensive one. Everything else is a fantasy. Black people don't have a shared secret language. If you walk around thinking "black people have a problem with illegitimacy" then you are a racist. It doesn't matter if the statistic is in general true- by generalizing the condition as if it is a feature of race, you are a racist. Now perhaps that is not what you mean at all. But you are the one who has connected the dots here and talk about illegitimacy and then race alone- not class or education. Yet I expect you would acknowledge that class is a real factor that affects all communities in this way. If you believe anything less than that then you are a racist. I write this without an ounce of anger or wish to judge you. These formulas are by definition racist.

"Pathology" is also a very loaded word, as well, and also makes you sound like a racist. If we acknowledge that the effects of poverty are likely to impact almost anyone in this way then there is no need to use such a word. But to insist that certain communities have pathologies, well, that makes you into some sort of supremacist by definition, and if the community is "black people" and "minorities", then you are a racist- you believe that other races are inferior for reasons outside of history, class and culture.

I expect you will say I've got all this wrong. OK, fine. But we aren't stupid here- there are special problems with poverty and with communities where poverty is endemic. Even if those communities - and I mean real, physical communities that have locations on maps - are mostly organized by race, choosing race as what you hang your critique on is simplistic and problematic.

> But it hasn’t always been this way. In 1940, the black illegitimacy rate
> was 19 percent, less than what it is for whites now.

> The rates today are too high for all groups, but for black Americans it
> is a disaster. The cause: In the main, Lyndon Johnson's 'War on
> Poverty/Great Society', which by making fathers superfluous, went a long
> way toward destroying the black family, the effects of which we see in
> our country today.

This reads like a fairy tale of inverted cause and effect, but mostly a fairy tale. There's a lot more than has gone on over the past 80 years than Lyndon Johnson.

> > exacerbated by race hustlers like Ibram Kendi.
> >> Al Sharpton, et al who have a vested interest in convincing minorities
> >> that they are victims who lack agency, and thus must follow the
> >> aforementioned 'leaders' to get their 'fair share' of what the world has
> >> to offer.

> > So somwhere along the route where we could document systematic racism in the 50s and 60 to now, it's all just went away and the problem now is minorities wanting things they aren't entitled to?Nonsense, and you know it.
> Is that a fair summary?
> No, it is not.
> Forget your negative portrayal of minority activists. That seems like
> small fry compared to this idea that hundreds of years of racist
> practices, beliefs and culture just disappeared at some point.

> I did not say they did, but they have been greatly attenuated, and I
> think you know that as well.

I guess the question is what remains after a "great attenuation." Who is to measure it, to witness it and speak about it? Some **** on Fox News? How would you identify any area of our society where racism, inequality and discrimination against the lower classes is a problem? Do you think you would learn about it given your current sources of information?

> But if you believe it happened, what were the causes? I mean, there are
> clear market forces that make societal change risky for power holders,
> but you think people just embraced change and said "we were wrong".
> >
> > As for biography, I grew up hearing people say "nigger" in Texas of the 80s (and they barely knew what to make of Jews). So again, where do think enlightened non-racism firmly settled in all 50 states?
> I don't think that 'enlightened non-racism' has firmly settled in all 50
> states, but I do think that openly racist behavior, especially by
> whites, has been so thoroughly discredited and condemned that it is not
> high on the list of our problems, even though when it appears it
> deserves swift sanction, as do, say, anti-Semitic acts and statements by
> blacks (to put my hand squarely on a third rail).
>
> But enough for now. Fire away, gents.

I keep hearing "we're mostly there, so it's OK to behave, act and speak like the job is done." It sounds like your only concern is the excesses of minorities and not at all on what remains of racism. And I find that self-serving.

Here's a pretty easy thing to offer. I believe the culture of most police departments in the country is problematic, focusing on force, dominance and obedience far too quickly. This increases the likelihood of violence. Too much of that violence is visited upon black people. And that alone is enough for me to support Black Lives Matters even if that violence turns out to be fairly evenly applied to communities seen by police as more likely to produce criminality. That's where the racism comes into it. Over and over, law abiding black people are treated as if they are likely criminals unworthy of respect or equal treatment. We need a country where you don't end up being handcuffed because you are house-shopping while black and engaged in no otherwise suspicious behavior.

The criminal justice system is also a cesspool of inequality, but that's another topic.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:

> > As for biography, I grew up hearing people say "nigger" in Texas of the 80s (and they barely knew what to make of Jews). So again, where do think enlightened non-racism firmly settled in all 50 states?

> Be careful. You are on a path that is likely to end up with your apologizing for over the top rhetoric (again).

I think you'd be surprised what a cold conversation this remains for me. I'm not speaking out of anger at all. I don't know what you are flagging as rhetoric, but feel free co clarify. I've witnessed casual racism from people I know are still alive. That's a salient point to make.

> You have distorted Bob's arguement egregiously, as you are wont to do.

Details? Not really sure what you are pointing to. Let's be clear- in the past I wanted to show Bob he was ____- fill in the blank. I suppose I have a bit of an agenda here- to responsibly represent my beliefs and point out things that don't convince me. But I'm not name-calling, and I'm not judging.. I accept perfectly well that you and Bob see your own politics as utterly free from the taint of racism and see all this as other people's problems. This is a very crude simplification, but my point is that I'm not out to change your minds at all. I'm just talking and sharing what stands out to me as problematic. If you don't want to talk to me, that's OK. Same for you, Bob. Honestly, we are disagreeing, but I'm still feeling pretty friendly.

> He did not say that systemic racism suddenlt disappeared. He said it is less now than formerly. As is non-systemic racism, I might add.

OK, my summary was an exaggeration and wrong. Let me not offend- I'm sorry. But offering it seems to put me in a position now to say: if some racism still exists, then how do you, personally, identify it? Who do you listen to as an authority on inequality? Look, accepting that Sharpton is a figure not worth paying attention to is not that difficult. Saying that blacks are his dupes and if they just woke up, they'd recognize that they are treated equally, well, I don't know how you get that far with such certainty- that's a real reach.

> He did not denigrate all minority activists. If you call Al Sharpton Ibram Kendi hustlers a thousand times, you have not denigrated all minority activists.

Wait, so why are we talking about them? Are we saying that some activists have legitimate concerns? I can't see a point to offering up Sharpton unless he's being used to make a generalization. What is the generalization?

>You have denigrated exactly two. If you think it's fair to generalize from that there is something wrong with you. In fact, if you don't think they are hustlers there is something wrong with you. I know what it is; it's wokeness.

So, I guess I've surprised you because I don't have a lot of love for Rev. Al. You've jumped to conclusions for no reason at all.

You're the one sounding hot under the collar here. Your eagerness to slap a label on me at the end here is self-impeaching, as if you really believe there is some "woke" type that is going to tick off all the boxes for your loathe. I mean, maybe I really am such a person, but I don't think so. But I'm not going to struggle against your classification, just offer that if you think it helps anything bout your presentation, you're wrong. It's just an indulgent swipe.

Again, I'm not angry, not feeling very judgmental, happy just to continue chatting. If it is getting your blood pressure up, I won't even blame you of you want to blow me off. It's OK!

Hey, Bob, I do appreciate the response, and really hope you can see that what I'm calling racism isn't directed at you personally. I wanted to keep the door open for you to add nuance. Feel free.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-5, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey, Bob, I do appreciate the response, and really hope you can see that what I'm calling racism isn't directed at you personally. I wanted to keep the door open for you to add nuance. Feel free.

Not to belabor this, but I value contrarians, and even though Franks sounds peeved at me, I still appreciate the two of you. So... where my shrug emojii? What can I say? I hope nobody is offended.

On 8/12/2021 10:56 PM, Herman wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 2:01:51 AM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>>>
>> We can all agree that laws that discriminate explicitly against minorities are examples of "systemic racism." Those are are a think of the past.
>
> Who are |"we"? You and Bob, the two lonely rightwingers here,

Huh? Who would say that laws that discriminate against people by race are not examples of systemic racism? It's a no-brainer. Even people in favor of them would admit that.

>who routinely defend racism and violence and, at the same time, deny they do, patting each other on the back?
>

Bob is a Conservative. I am a Libertarian. They are different. You know that, but dishonestly pretend they are the same. When have I, or Bob for that matter, defended racism, you lying piece of shit. Give me one example of me being racist? Just one.

> It's one of your routine techniques defending the collapsing status quo, whether it's white privilege or the right to consume the human race to extinction. You redefine, deny and correct.

I don't have any techniques. I try to be analytical and logical, which is necessary to make correct decisions.

> We're all getting on in years but virtually all of your posting history by now is telling people they are wrong,

I call it like I see it. Same as you.

>usually by first misrepresenting what they were saying and then taking it apart. It's a way of passing time, and I assume you enjoy it hugely, especially the part where you're saying you have no dog in whatever fight, you're just a ABD (a non-existent degree if you have been out of school for decades, but never mind) you're virtually a PhD, and btw are we aware economics is a science,

Economics is a social science. And Ray hasn't the slightest idea what it is. And I am not enjoying this at all. Are you happy about that?

>I assume you're typing your stuff wearing a white lab coat, and no, this is not slander, just an indication that we're not taking this is a seriously as you do.

Calling people racists without basis is slander. And disgusting.

On 8/12/2021 11:44 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>>> As for biography, I grew up hearing people say "nigger" in Texas of the 80s (and they barely knew what to make of Jews). So again, where do think enlightened non-racism firmly settled in all 50 states?
>
>> Be careful. You are on a path that is likely to end up with your apologizing for over the top rhetoric (again).
>
> I think you'd be surprised what a cold conversation this remains for me. I'm not speaking out of anger at all. I don't know what you are flagging as rhetoric, but feel free co clarify. I've witnessed casual racism from people I know are still alive. That's a salient point to make.
>
>> You have distorted Bob's arguement egregiously, as you are wont to do.
>
> Details? Not really sure what you are pointing to. Let's be clear- in the past I wanted to show Bob he was ____- fill in the blank. I suppose I have a bit of an agenda here- to responsibly represent my beliefs and point out things that don't convince me. But I'm not name-calling, and I'm not judging. I accept perfectly well that you and Bob see your own politics as utterly free from the taint of racism and see all this as other people's problems. This is a very crude simplification, but my point is that I'm not out to change your minds at all. I'm just talking and sharing what stands out to me as problematic. If you don't want to talk to me, that's OK. Same for you, Bob. Honestly, we are disagreeing, but I'm still feeling pretty friendly.
>
>> He did not say that systemic racism suddenlt disappeared. He said it is less now than formerly. As is non-systemic racism, I might add.
>
> OK, my summary was an exaggeration and wrong. Let me not offend- I'm sorry.

Told you.

But offering it seems to put me in a position now to say: if some racism still exists, then how do you, personally, identify it? Who do you listen to as an authority on inequality?

Inequality does not indicate current racism, systemic or otherwise. Current inequality is primarily the result of past racism. After hundreds of years of slavery and discrimination, if all racism suddenly disappeared, how long do YOU think it would take for blacks to achieve educational, income and wealth equality with whites?

Look, accepting that Sharpton is a figure not worth paying attention to is not that difficult. Saying that blacks are his dupes and if they just woke up, they'd recognize that they are treated equally, well, I don't know how you get that far with such certainty- that's a real reach.
>
>> He did not denigrate all minority activists. If you call Al Sharpton Ibram Kendi hustlers a thousand times, you have not denigrated all minority activists.
>
> Wait, so why are we talking about them? Are we saying that some activists have legitimate concerns?

Why is that a question?

I can't see a point to offering up Sharpton unless he's being used to make a generalization. What is the generalization?

Ask Bob.

>
>> You have denigrated exactly two. If you think it's fair to generalize from that there is something wrong with you. In fact, if you don't think they are hustlers there is something wrong with you. I know what it is; it's wokeness.
>
> So, I guess I've surprised you because I don't have a lot of love for Rev. Al. You've jumped to conclusions for no reason at all.

I meant He (Bob) has denigrated exactly two.

>
> You're the one sounding hot under the collar here. Your eagerness to slap a label on me at the end here is self-impeaching, as if you really believe there is some "woke" type that is going to tick off all the boxes for your loathe. I mean, maybe I really am such a person, but I don't think so. But I'm not going to struggle against your classification, just offer that if you think it helps anything bout your presentation, you're wrong. It's just an indulgent swipe.
>
> Again, I'm not angry, not feeling very judgmental, happy just to continue chatting. If it is getting your blood pressure up, I won't even blame you of you want to blow me off. It's OK!
>

The problem is that you continually say outrageous things and then retract them.

I suppose I'll have a long wait before Herman apologizes (or even tells me why he did) for calling me a racist.