From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 02:45:09 MDT
Mike writes
> This behavior of blacks in the US and aboriginals
> in Australia cannot be solely or even mainly
> attributed to white racism,
Correct, I'd say
> since other minority groups that suffer from racist
> attitudes among white supremacists, particularly
> jews and asians, do not engage in such crime
> and make up a disproportionately SMALLER ...
What could you mean, "don't engage in such crime"?
That's inaccurate! While you may have meant something
similar, this is very careless wording at best, and on
a very sensitive topic! What about Dutch Schultz?
Ever heard of the Black Hand?
Then Damien wrote about the above
> WHAT!? Magical thinking on the extrope list?
a comment that I don't understand at all. (He then had
a little fun by extending the hypothesized process in
the minds of his adversaries to
> "It *is* their skin color genes, your honor, nothing
> more, just makes some of them *bad to the bone*!" )
which Mike overreacted to, IMO, by calling this a
libelous claim.
Mike additionally retorts
> This is the sort of outrageous crap that comes up from those
> on the list who don't want to be confused by the facts,
well, I guess you agree with my good leftist partner Jeff
Davis who in a post tonight said that indeed the facts
will be found to be all or mainly on one side. You and
he only disagree about one minor point: whose side! ;-)
I'll reply to Jeff tomorrow when I've got more steam, but
do want to express my appreciation now for his post.
> who prefer to attack the messenger rather than examine
> some really uncomfortable truths and try to objectively
> find some real causes and possible cures for significant
> cultural problems.
I have to agree that sometimes the messenger, e.g., Murray
and Herrnstein, do get savaged.
> Such individuals would rather deny that such facts are
> real, they would prefer to slander those who claim they
> are real...
Not on this list, pal. I don't recall *anyone* refusing
to accept *facts*. There has been *only* controversy
about what are the facts and what they imply. "Slander"?
Again, one might think you mean to describe the actions
of people on this list---and I think you're wrong in
almost all cases. (I do concede that it has, in effect,
occurred. But not recently. But then, I can't keep up
with all the threads, so maybe I'm wrong.)
> I think that possibly one reason such people don't
> want to examine such uncomfortable truths is that
> aside from claiming a melanin connection, the only
> explanation they can think of [stems from] their own
> liberal attitudes of abdicating personal responsibility,
While it sounds as if you may be right, upon rereading
and rereading that sentence, I don't quite get it.
So given a liberal L who is less enamored of assigning
personal responsibility, how does that cause them not
to want to face uncomfortable truths? You lost me.
(We *all* have trouble accepting uncomfortable truths
that don't fit our preconceptions except perhaps Rafal
and Jeff, who can rise to total objectivity.)
> of telling minorities that they are right to be
> pissed off, that they (and not just their n'th
> removed ancestors) are oppressed and are
> justified in resenting whitey. This is another
> truth that they don't want to face and will
> vigorously shout down those who mention its
> possibility,
Can't be shouted down here. Maybe at Berkeley, but
not here.
> as I expect to see in response to this post....
Nah.
The only thing even approaching "shouting down" is
when *large* numbers of people "pile on" a poster,
to try to exert social pressure to conform.
Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be happening
much here anymore.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:16 MST