Originally posted by ilikecomicsThis almost screams of satire because you have to be joking
Who is they ? If it's individuals, I would be okay with that. If by they you mean the state then no bueno.Forced integration or forced segregation are wrong. If the south was segregationist, why didn't blacks move to the north ?
P.s. https://mises.org/wire/age-entitlement-legacy-anti-discrimination-laws
Originally posted by Newjak
This almost screams of satire because you have to be joking
I'm not, just uneducated. Also, reducing someone's view to simple absurdity is the tactic of the narcissist and why I made the steelmanning thread, in which I personally discovered the difficulty of seeing someone else's side of things.
What core concepts am I missing on your end of things ?
Have you ever heard the phrase "the poverty of diminished expectations ?
I posted the article not to prove a point, but to see what you think of it.
It's an economist, whose views I respect, critiquing a book that critiques the civil rights movement. Thought it was an interesting third angle outside of just calling the civil rights movement good or bad.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsYeah I'm going to assume you need to read some more on the civil rights era, also the preceding eras, if your best reply was this and why didn't the African American population move north.
I'm not, just uneducated. Also, reducing someone's view to simple absurdity is the tactic of the narcissist and why I made the steelmanning thread, in which I personally discovered the difficulty of seeing someone else's side of things.
What core concepts am I missing on your end of things ?Have you ever heard the phrase "the poverty of diminished expectations ?
I posted the article not to prove a point, but to see what you think of it.
It's an economist, whose views I respect, critiquing a book that critiques the civil rights movement. Thought it was an interesting third angle outside of just calling the civil rights movement good or bad.
Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah I'm going to assume you need to read some more on the civil rights era, also the preceding eras, if your best reply was this and why didn't the African American population move north.
Of course i would, I want to read more about everything.
I'm trying to meet you where you're at while being transparent about my biases. I'm a libertarian.
That question wasn't an aha gotcha attempt, I was genuinely asking you because you speak with authority on the subject. Was there laws passed that didn't let people move or something ?
You also didn't even try to answer if youve heard of the poverty of diminished expectations e.g. ivy league Universities grading at sat scores by race, which resulted in law suits from asians grouped because asian women had to score higher than white men, or how it's had a serious detrimental impact on academia, or how affirmative action students don't have confidence because they're unsure if they're there based on merit or melanin.
Re: If you're against interracial marriage, you're racist.
Originally posted by Klaw
If you're against same sex marriage you're __________________.Fill in the blank.
Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.
There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsEven if you don't understand the era you should understand why it is hard for poor undermined minorities to simply pack up and leave. There are logistical needs that make it harder to get out.
Of course i would, I want to read more about everything.I'm trying to meet you where you're at while being transparent about my biases. I'm a libertarian.
That question wasn't an aha gotcha attempt, I was genuinely asking you because you speak with authority on the subject. Was there laws passed that didn't let people move or something ?
You also didn't even try to answer if youve heard of the poverty of diminished expectations e.g. ivy league Universities grading at sat scores by race, which resulted in law suits from asians grouped because asian women had to score higher than white men, or how it's had a serious detrimental impact on academia, or how affirmative action students don't have confidence because they're unsure if they're there based on merit or melanin.
You also assume the North was a beacon of help. While yes the North was "better" biases in the North still existed.
This has been well documented in many studies you can go look up. For instance in order to move you need a place to live and some sort of income. It's been proven that minorities, especially African Americans, were and still are less likely to given equal treatment when trying to procure the above. It's been shown having an ethnic name on your resume can reduce your chances of even getting an interview.
Affirmative action was created to overcome the problem of repressed minorities needing to get more work experience to overcome the generational gaps other races getting a leg up.
So how would you handle that?
Originally posted by ilikecomicsAn interesting thing about Buddhism: in Japan, where Buddhism was the prevalent school of thought, they didn't have disaster relief because Buddhism said that "everything happens for a reason", "life is suffering and we can do nothing about it", etc. Disaster relief was founded (with great difficulty) by Kagawa Toyohiko, a Christian. Buddhism would have been content with having people continue to unnecessarily suffer, whilst Christianity brought in a humane system of support that is now considered standard practice.
Buddhism and jainism can be okay, but that's about it.
And even those are anti human in certain aspects.
Re: Re: If you're against interracial marriage, you're racist.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Originally posted by Scribble
An interesting thing about Buddhism: in Japan, where Buddhism was the prevalent school of thought, they didn't have disaster relief because Buddhism said that "everything happens for a reason", "life is suffering and we can do nothing about it", etc. Disaster relief was founded (with great difficulty) by Kagawa Toyohiko, a Christian. Buddhism would have been content with having people continue to unnecessarily suffer, whilst Christianity brought in a humane system of support that is now considered standard practice.
Yeah that's why I said they have anti human components. That's why I'm an Austrian, praxeology's first axiom is that people have unlimited wants and that finite resources exist.
We only have this life, any system that turns people away from that truth is very ugly.
Originally posted by Newjak
Even if you don't understand the era you should understand why it is hard for poor undermined minorities to simply pack up and leave. There are logistical needs that make it harder to get out.You also assume the North was a beacon of help. While yes the North was "better" biases in the North still existed.
This has been well documented in many studies you can go look up. For instance in order to move you need a place to live and some sort of income. It's been proven that minorities, especially African Americans, were and still are less likely to given equal treatment when trying to procure the above. It's been shown having an ethnic name on your resume can reduce your chances of even getting an interview.
Affirmative action was created to overcome the problem of repressed minorities needing to get more work experience to overcome the generational gaps other races getting a leg up.
So how would you handle that?
The facts are that single parent income destroys a child's chance for a future. Single parent households in the black community directly correlates to the amount of welfare benefits received, since the new deal.
Black slaves had a higher marriage rate than modern blacks, and I think it would be pretty silly to argue that conditions for blacks now are worse for them than during slavery.
Youd handle it by changing the culture. Look to asian americans who sacrifice heavily for education, and make 20k more a year than the median income for whites.
Or east indie blacks who come to america and make more than whites, do you think nigerians have white names ?
If America blacks don't want to be successful, that's fine, but I don't think it's very empowering for them to cast as wide of a net as possible that calls them all victims.
What about all the black millionaires ? Did people throw money at them for being black ? Or because they provide value ?
I could send you videos or articles, but I noticed you don't respond well to that/address them.
Lastly, I wouldn't do anything about it other than live my life in a generous and compassionate way. The impulse to have some magical leader come wave his hands to fix problems is the problem.
Re: Re: If you're against interracial marriage, you're racist.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course if you are against interracial marriage you are racist.There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" I don't give a shit what the Supreme Court or anyone else says. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
What do you base this belief on?
@robtard
What do you think of this perspective on marriage ?
https://mises.org/library/marriage-under-influence-idea-contract