November 19, 2016

"The only people who will think Trump is a racist going forward are people who haven’t read this article."

Writes Scott Adams, linking to this article.

It's a long article, so few will actually get through the whole thing, leaving almost everyone capable of clinging to their belief that Trump is a racist, if that's what they need to do.

It’s not surprising that they get bitter and look to the racial ideas that are familiar to them as a way to explain their frustrations.

96 comments:

alan markus said...

I was going to post a link to this article in an earlier thread. Glad to see that it is worthy of being a post. It is a long article - 8000 words - I spent several days reading it. Note that the guy who wrote it is certainly anti-Trump.

David said...

I read it yesterday. It's not too hard a read. I had considered sending it to some of my hysterical friends and family but in the current environment everything is gasoline for the fire.

Qwinn said...

Excellent article. Thanks for the link.

I can think of no one who should be influenced by it that can be influenced by it. This includes the entire media. They need their narrative. It's crucial to their self image.

CWJ said...

I also read it earlier, and will send to some of my foreign exchange kids back in their several homes. It will provide needed perspective to the view of the states presented overseas.

Glad Althouse found it as well.

Fernandinande said...

If I had a son he'd look like Donald Trump attacking a well-meaning Hispanic trying to keep his neighborhood safe.

Roger Sweeny said...

And there's this (short) post about Donald Trump's supposedly anti-semitic ad. David Henderson is one of the nicest, fairest people writing on the internet.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/11/larry_summerss_2.html

Michael K said...

The hysteria on HuffPo should eventually die down if the Democrats would stop funding the riots. Maybe not. They hate being losers.

Politico has an article on the Republicans "coming home" to Trump now that he is assembling an administration. I would be in favor of a few, like Romney, being involved at a serious level but most of them are better excluded. They think they are essential. They aren't.

That was a pretty good explanation of a lot of the fake stories. Plus, he hates Trump for a lot of the reasons I like him. That's can't be all bad.

The Jeff Sessions battle should be interesting.

Roger Sweeny said...

An interesting question is why "Scott Alexander" and David Henderson both defended Trump from charges of being racist and anti-semitic. Neither voted for him and both have written against him.

Part of the answer is probably simple fairness. But Henderson is a libertarian and "Alexander" doesn't fit easily on any political team. So neither has that team spirit (that, say, Krugman has) to never criticize "your side" and always criticize "the other side."

Also, as anyone with libertarian leanings knows, you will be accused of being racist or sexist or homophobic if you defend freedom of speech or freedom of association or due process in many contexts.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Freeman Hunt said...

I read that a couple days ago and thought it was great.

Jeff Brokaw said...

That article is very good, and well-written. All of the points in it seem so obvious to me, and match the way I think, yet ... I continue to be amazed at the sheep-like nature of much of America. Much too easily swayed with hardly any evidence at all. This is the confirmation bias that Scott Adams always talks about, I guess. Most people like to think what they like to think, and are interested in "evidence" and "facts" only to the extent that they service one's worldview. I know I'm more analytical than probably 95% of the people in the world, but still, we need to be smarter. To pick just one example, the way Trump's quotes about immigration were twisted slightly to re-purpose their meaning was a show-stopper for me, since I was not pre-disposed to hate Trump like so many others were. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's a circus sideshow for the easily fooled.

iowan2 said...

It is now almost impossible to comment about all the false narrative surrounding Trump (and the Republican Party to a lesser extent) with out sounding all snarky.

I have repeatedly responded the the racist, bigoted, misogynistic, smear of Trump, with the simple request to look at his 40+ years of business, across the globe, and point out all of the proof that should be easy to spot. Even point out the hilarious 'dog whistles' to attempt to gin up the numbers. The truth is, Trump is no better, or worse than any person. He makes decisions based on merit, not othering, entire sectors of the population.

The fear that some speak of, is caused by the false narrative of the media. No evidence of anything Trump has presented supports any cause of fear by any segment of society (excepting Washington DC establishment power brokers).

Jupiter said...

"It’s not surprising that they get bitter and look to the racial ideas that are familiar to them as a way to explain their frustrations."

I assume you mean "cling to", not "look to".

Sebastian said...

"leaving almost everyone capable of clinging to their belief that Trump is a racist, if that's what they need to do. It’s not surprising that they get bitter and look to the racial ideas that are familiar to them as a way to explain their frustrations." Anything can leave almost anyone cling to their belief that x is y, if that's what they need to do, or even if it's not what they "need" to do. It's not surprising that they get bitter and look to [fill in the blank] ideas that are familiar to them as a way to explain their frustrations.

But conventional social psychology leaves out the prog politics, which cultivates the need to cling to certain beliefs, which race-baits groups into feeling bitter, and which manipulates frustrations for power gains -- fortunately thwarted temporarily.

Jupiter said...

So, I checked the link. I don't get it. How is any of that supposed to prove that Trump is not a racist? Are you all crazy? Pictures of Trump eating a Taco Salad? That picture merely provides one more piece of evidence, not that any more was needed, that Donald Trump has white skin. How can pictures of a white guy prove that he is not white? Everyone knows he's white, and he does not deny that he's white. He's as white as I am, for Christ's sake. No way on Earth he's not a racist.

Did you guys miss the last 25 years? Do you have a 1990 calendar on the wall? You cannot disprove charges of racism against white people.

damikesc said...

When I hear discussions about how "racist" Trump et al are, I just respond with "The same people claiming this claimed that Pickering, who made his name opposing the KKK when they were relevant, racist. Their opinion means less than nothing".

Politico has an article on the Republicans "coming home" to Trump now that he is assembling an administration. I would be in favor of a few, like Romney, being involved at a serious level but most of them are better excluded. They think they are essential. They aren't.

They "come home" because they see the alternative. Kristol recognizes that the Progressives have no problem assaulting a Jewish guy who isn't 100% on their side. You can find Trump "distasteful" --- but when you compare him to the alternative, he's a panacaea.

It's also fun to remember, with my Progressive friends, all of the riots that ensued when Obama was elected twice. And they claimed conservatives HATED HIS GUTS IRRATIONALLY.

Yet...we didn't riot. At all.

So, what does that say about the Left?

He's showing the Left for what it is --- bullying crybabies.

mockturtle said...

The fact is, even these protesters don't really believe Trump is a racist. They just need to direct their venom somewhere and so they apply the usual leftist aspersions. There is no reasoning, no convincing, no dissuading them from their well-rehearsed tantrum. If people start ignoring them and the media spotlight on their antics they may just settle down. Or they will start bombing things, in which case we can throw them into prison.

Jupiter said...

You guys really don't understand the nature of the Enemy.

The charge of racism is inherently vague. It could mean that you actively attempt to kill every Japanese person you encounter, like a US Marine in 1943. It could mean that you read a book. You might prove you aren't trying to kill Japanese, but chances are you did read the book. Or some other book. So at some point, your answer is going to have to be, I admit the evidence, but deny my guilt. Good luck with that. If you even take these assholes seriously, for so much as a second, you have already lost.

cheddar said...

There are a lot of great quotes and useful facts in that long article. But some important things are glossed over. For example, Donald Trump sure looks good holding the rainbow flag in Colorado. But does it demonstrate his support for LGBT rights or as a TV guy, does he just recognize a great prop when he sees it? If he is supportive of LGBT rights, how does that explain the selection of Pence?

Regarding the findings that the Trump real estate company discriminated against blacks in the 1970s, the author describes the company as Trump's father's. But Donald Trump was the president of the company at that time. And nearby in the article there are some findings from survey data that indicate that whites don't want to live by blacks. Perhaps the author is suggesting that Trump was just trying to satisfy his current renters. But that doesn't mean refusing to rent to black tenants isn't racist.

alan markus said...

Mockturtle, I suspect this movement will go the way of Occupy Wall Street.

Bruce Hayden said...

A lot of good ideas in the article that Adams linked to. For one, next time the leftists here go on about racism, David Duke, the KKK, etc., point them to this article. Duke apparently did not endorse Trump, and Trump has been on record for 20 years now condemning Duke. There was the one instance during his campaign where he didn't immediately condemn Duke, was equivocal, and then clarified the next day. And, there just aren't that many KKK any more. Fewer than would fill a large hotel. Not worth the air needed to condemn them. We are talking maybe 4 digits nationally, out of almost a 1/3 of a billion Americans (9 digits). Alt Right isn't that much bigger.

Another interesting point was the difference in philosophy on immigration, between one group who believe that migration and immigration are a right, and another group who believe that a community should get to decide who they have to accept in the community. Obama's speech to illegals, telling them that they are welcome, and should vote, was a good example of the first. A lot on the right believe the other, that we, as a country, should be able to determine who gets to move here.

buwaya puti said...

Scott Adams should know better. He himself has explained this all before. People cant be argued out of opinions that they havent been argued into. Hardly anyone is susceptible to rational argument.

Its all about tribes and identity these days, and thats it. The Trump approach going forward is going to be about expanding identity, not rational argument - join the winners. Too bad, but its so and it cant be helped.

As for the press and the "cultural", legal and regulatory industries - they are owned by opposed interests, you cant argue a man out of a position from which he derives his living, you cant reason him away from his rice bowl.

Jupiter said...

Plus, you don't understand what drives the Enemy.

Despite 60 years of governmental and private solicitude, black Americans simply refuse to behave like other Americans. They are criminals, and they don't do well in school. Their communities are disaster areas, and their approach to self-governance amounts to looting each other as a sideline to looting the white suburbs around them. These are facts, undeniable, and the successes of a substantial number of individual black people cannot redeem them. There are really only two possibilities; this is because
1) blacks just don't work right, or
2) whites somehow *prevent* blacks from working right.

And as the evidence for 1) piles up in the ruins of formerly great cities, liberal America doubles down on 2), and doubles down again. We are now at the point where the reason black people kill each other over a pair of shoes is "micro-aggressions". These people are beyond desperation, and you are not going to pry their hands off the racism trigger with pictures of Donald Trump eating a taco salad. Which, by the way, isn't really Mexican anyway. And would be a racial appropriation crime if it were.

QED, Baby!

Paco Wové said...

"cheddar"'s 10:10 comment is a great example of one of Alexander's points: that white racism is now the null hypothesis of the left, to be accepted and assumed unless significant contradictory evidence exists.

wildswan said...

The liberls bitterly cling to the idea that people 70 years old secretly support segregation. But people seventy years old in 2016 listened to Bob Dylan when they were twenty, grew up in a legally desegregated society - and would vote for a black president as the article says. Whereas in 1960 people who were seventy listened to Woodrow Wilson when they were twenty, grew up a society which allowed segregation and would not vote for a black president as the articles's graph shows.

Over the years the correct image of the likely beliefs of a person 70 years old has changed but the perception among liberls has not. A person seventy years old has spent fifty years in a legally desegregated country. A person 70 years old from the South very likely has had to evolve and very likely has evolved. But liberls still see a 70 year old (especially a 70 yearold white man) in the image most likely in 1960 rather than the image most likely in 2016. And so they attack Trump, Sessions, Republicans as racist. This imagery is out-of-date but, as our hostess suggests, progressivism is losing ground and filling up with bitter clingers gripping the image of themselves as civil rights activists while they smile benignly down at pictures of Trump supporters getting beaten.

and PS. The campaign began with Trump supporters get beaten at rallies and Trump rallies were enormous by the end of the campaign. If you bleed, you lead. But Democrats don't do learn, they're too busy knowing-it-all.

Michael K said...

If he is supportive of LGBT rights, how does that explain the selection of Pence?

Life does not revolve around the leftist meme of the day. LGBT "rights" are one of the fronts of the culture wars going on for the past 25 years. Pence is being attacked for the same law that Bill Clinton signed.

He is probably a stiff in matters of culture, where Trump is very tolerant. Concern with LGBT rights is probably 1% of my life and maybe 3% of theirs.

Is it possible that there are more important things in the governing of this country than LGBT rights ?

wildswan said...

One thing I learned in pro-life is that people will take surprising risks for their beliefs but will not be bored for them.

clint said...

cheddar said...
There are a lot of great quotes and useful facts in that long article. But some important things are glossed over. For example, Donald Trump sure looks good holding the rainbow flag in Colorado. But does it demonstrate his support for LGBT rights or as a TV guy, does he just recognize a great prop when he sees it? If he is supportive of LGBT rights, how does that explain the selection of Pence?"

So... you accept that the attacks against Trump might be overblown, but then uncritically accept the ones against Pence? The ones that come from the same sources with the same bald assertions without evidence?

Hint: See: Snopes on "Pence" and "Conversion Therapy". Don't take my word for it.

Mike Sylwester said...

Smear artists continually tried to smear Martin Luther King as a Communist. If King was praised in some Communist publications, then the smear artists demanded that King denounce the article, the publication and Communism. If King ignored the impertinent demands, then that was proof, according to the smear artists, that he himself was a Communist sympathizer.

Today's smear artists use the same tactics to smear Republican politicians as racists. They -- for example Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- smear the racism off of David Duke and off of the Ku Klux Klan onto Republican politicians.

Martin Luther King said and wrote many things on topics that concerned him. In those circumstances, however, the smear artists demanded that King define himself in relationship to whatever was said or written by some Communists somewhere.

FullMoon said...

That article chastizes the authors fellow leftists for wasting the "racist" card. He points out that they have over-used it to such an extent that it is becoming less useful and that if a genuine racist/Hitler does show up to run in the future, many will ignore the evidence because it has all been said before about every Republican candidate. Many protesters have grown up reading and hearing how Bush stole an election, lied us into war, followed by eight years of Obama and his gang dis respecting the police and the opposition and fanning the flames.

Hopefully as time goes on, some will realize that things are better than they were, or at least realize Trump and his voters were never as evil as portrayed. Even better, maybe many will realize that they have been mislead all this time.

Terry said...

Jupiter wrote:
Despite 60 years of governmental and private solicitude, black Americans simply refuse to behave like other Americans. They are criminals, and they don't do well in school. Their communities are disaster areas, and their approach to self-governance amounts to looting each other as a sideline to looting the white suburbs around them. These are facts, undeniable, and the successes of a substantial number of individual black people cannot redeem them.

This, Jupiter, is racist. You've written that Blacks are characterized by the worst traits of Black people. The Black guy who breaks into your car is acting Black. The Black doctor you see for your cold is not acting Black.

YoungHegelian said...

As I've pointed out before, "racism" or "white supremacy" now occupies the same place on the post-Marxist Left that class consciousness did for Marx & Spirit did for Hegel: it is the motive force of history.

When Righties hear the word "racism" they think of an individual person, an individual will, committing an act of prejudice. That's not what the Left thinks. The Left thinks it's systemic & it exists above the intention of any individual. Of course, the Left disingenuously plays on this double sense of the word "racism" in its politics. It cannot be honest about its assertion of racism as equivalent to Spirit or Class Consciousness because that would invite the charge of "Wow, that's a lot of metaphysical baggage you're carrying there. Would you like to examine your core assumptions?". They have absolutely no desire to examine their core assumptions in the marketplace of ideas, because to do so means they've already lost.

If you'd like an example of just how pervasive this "systemic racism" thought has become, take a look at What hath God Wrought? Now, this is a volume in the Oxford History of the US. There are no more authoritative historical texts on the planet. Yet, this volume examines the era of 1815-1848 (Jacksonian Democracy) through the lens of white supremacy. The ideology of "system racism" as an explanatory force of history ain't just in the streets. It's well ensconced in the highest cultural levels of Western culture now.

Birches said...

The best rebuttal to that article is that Scott Alexander does not bring up the Mexican judge in his argument of things a Trump has said.

I wish he'd allow comments on this one because I would like to hear what he says on that point, but he hates when newcomers flood his comments.

Owen said...

Great article, thanks. It can be deployed as needed whenever these bad arguments and factoids emerge. I admired the care and system with which the writer demolished the arguments, and it actually strengthened the piece to learn that the author is no fan of Trump, and is mostly concerned with the damage being done to mental health and public discourse.

also: framing the "null hypothesis" as Your Favorite Thing is how so many bad arguments gain traction. Look at "global warming" where an extremely complex coupled nonlinear chaotic system is assumed to be driven by a trace gas, and it is left to the other side to prove that it isn't.

Birches said...

And the overwrought attacks on Mike Pence are part of the problem. If Mike Pence is a monster, then so is almost any conservative.

jaydub said...

I was hoping to get Chuck's opinion on this before making up my mind.

rcocean said...

The whole idea there are leftists who have weighed all the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion that Trump is a "Racist" is absurd.

Its nothing more that a meaningless insult thrown at every Republican POTUS and Republican POTUS candidate. Trying to defend against it is a waste of time. Better to counter attack and call the accuser an SJW.

rcocean said...

Which is one reason Trump won. He doesn't play defense. That upsets all the pompous blowhards and pseudo-aristocrats who want Trump to be "above it all" or reason with the Left. The Romney-Bush way doesn't win. It just encourages the Left to be even more abusive.

mockturtle said...

rcocean, you've got it!

JAORE said...

"The best rebuttal to that article is that Scott Alexander does not bring up the Mexican judge in his argument of things a Trump has said."

Read it again Birches. Specifically #16.

Now,what's the second best rebuttal?

CWJ said...

"...if a genuine racist/Hitler does show up to run in the future, many will ignore the evidence because it has all been said before about every Republican candidate."

And wouldn't it be a hoot that when the real thing shows up, it's a Democrat.

YoungHegelian said...

And wouldn't it be a hoot that when the real thing shows up, it's a Democrat.

It won't be Hitler showing up. It'll be Chairman Mao. We already saw the Red Guards on display at the Trump rally in Chicago. And, yes, he'll be a Democrat.

Gahrie said...

And the overwrought attacks on Mike Pence are part of the problem. If Mike Pence is a monster, then so is almost any conservative.

Well...duh!

One of the reasons for Trump is precisely the fact that every conservative, or Republican has been treated this way going all the way back to at least Goldwater. (That monster is going to get your daughter killed in a nuclear war)

The Democrats are reacting exactly the way they did after the election of Lincoln. They're talking about secession and various Democratic governments at the city and state level are embracing nullification.

Gahrie said...

By the way, our nation is just as divided today as it was before the Civil War. This time it is divided between urban and rural instead of North and South.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I was hoping to get Chuck's opinion on this before making up my mind."

Where is Chuck? Basting the Thanksgiving crow?

Gahrie said...

Where is Chuck?

He was just on another thread boasting about voting for Trump.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Good read. Too bad the people who need to read it most, won't.

Will Cate said...

Clingers... bitter ... I see what you did there

Jupiter said...

Terry said...

"This, Jupiter, is racist. You've written that Blacks are characterized by the worst traits of Black people. The Black guy who breaks into your car is acting Black. The Black doctor you see for your cold is not acting Black."

Yeah, Terry, I know. I'm a racist. And the court system that locks up all those black guys for the crimes white racists made them commit is racist. The schools that can't educate blacks are racist, and the women they have to rape, racists all. The homes they break into, the innocent people they attack in the streets, the cities they destroy, racist. Racist, racist, racist! The entire world is just a giant conspiracy, with no other goal than to keep a good (black) man down.

You keep telling yourself that, Terry. Maybe they'll eat you last.

And by the way, I don't go to a doctor for a fucking cold.

n.n said...

Racism, sexism, etc. has been reconstituted under [class] diversity.

Yancey Ward said...

You guys are misunderstanding Adams to some extent here- he is saying anyone that can make it to the end of the article will have their mind changed if they previously thought Trump was the next coming of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Obviously, most such people won't make it past the title and first sentence.

Comanche Voter said...

Why they cling bitterly to their secular religion; they'd grab a gun too if they knew which end was which. Fortunately they don't.

mccullough said...

Interesting article but as buwaya said most people aren't rational most of the time. And most of the people who work in media have the same problem.

David Begley said...

Just wondering if the CNN and MSNBC people will read it.

Nah, that destroys their narrative and lowers the temp.

Freder Frederson said...

I think it was hilarious that two of items the article trotted out to demonstrate Trump is not a racist were the pictures of him holding an upside down rainbow flag and him eating a taco bowl.

viator said...

It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with alinskying Trump and all his supporters.

#12 - “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Facts and truth have little to do with this.

Michael K said...

black Americans simply refuse to behave like other Americans. They are criminals, and they don't do well in school.

I have to agree with Terry here. There has been a massive shift in black life since I was a child. I was raised by a black nannie who lived with us from the time my sister was born in 1941. We had neighbors in our Chicago middle class neighborhood (Michelle Obama grew up 4 houses from ours years after we left) and many had black women doing household chores and black men doing window washing and handyman work around most days. There was just not the crime issue that we see now.

When I was a senior in high school, my best friend and I hung out every Friday night in a black owned tavern named "Ella Mae's Hideaway." on South Chicago Avenue and 67th street. We were the only white faces in there. My buddy had worked all summer as helper on a beer truck and got to be friends with the owner. She assumed we were 21. We spent Fridays playing bumper pool and got to be so good at it that we rarely lost a game.

The guys, all black and in their 20s, would line up to play us. Beer was a quarter and they would put their quarters on the side of the table to hold their place as challengers. We were all drinking and the black guys were losing at bumper pool. I never felt unsafe and there was never a fight or a threat.

We have become accustomed to the dysfunctional world of LBJ's "War on Poverty" which has wrecked black life.

Black illegitimacy was 25% in 1965 and lower in 1956. The black family has been devastated and we see similar pathology in England with the welfare state, except those people are white. Less violence but similar drunkenness and illegitimacy.

In the middle 50s, before I went off to college, some of the South Side was changing and I played on integrated softball teams. I remember going home for lunch with one black team member and his wife fixed pork loin sandwiches, which I have liked ever since.

The chaos in black neighborhoods was not always there. It began around 1968. By that time I was in California but I remember before it happened.

My black nursemaid lived to 95, always cared for by my family and she even got to hold my youngest daughter as an infant before she died. The story is sad but it was not always the story.

gadfly said...

Trump supporters, like Scott Adams, spent the entire election season not reading the online evidence out there that describes the corruption surrounding Donald Trump's celebrity career.

Now the cartoonist wants us to read something that will absolutely show that Trump is not racist. If you are a narcissist, you don't qualify for any of the other terms ending in ". . . ist." That is because there isn't room enough in Trump's tiny brain for anything other than Donald Trump.

Jupiter said...

Michael K,

I don't doubt your story, and I am sure there are millions more like it. But as you know perfectly well, the Left would say that it is nothing but the sentimental maunderings of an old, white racist. What I am getting at is two things;
1 - You can't win trying to prove you are not racist. The fact that you notice yourself not being racist means that you are racist. The fact that you have a defense to offer proves that your "non-racism" wasn't real. The way they play this game is "Checkmate! You lose! Your move." The accusation must be met with guilty silence. Any other response is proof of guilt.
2 - As long as we go on pretending that racial differences are only skin deep, the Left gets a free pass. If you intend to comport yourself as a good non-racist, you had better be ready to pretend to believe lots of things that you don't actually believe. You will have to call people liars when you know they are telling the truth. You will have to join the mob baying after some unlucky soul whose courage and integrity exceeded your own. You will be a guard in your own Gulag. And they will still call you a racist.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I think there's a flaw in the author's argument--

He says that we shouldn't fear that a party/politician will suddenly start infringing on the rights of others as a way to gain the loyalty of 3%-5% of the population, that that's irrational.

But, we've already seen one party do that, so it's perfectly rational for members of that party to fear that the other party will do the same....

Freder Frederson said...

Shorter Michael K: Things were so much better when Blacks knew their place.

As long as we go on pretending that racial differences are only skin deep

But doesn't Michael's story demonstrate just the opposite. Black people were placid and peaceful until something terrible happened in the mid-60s that turned them into irredeemable violent monsters. Apparently the vote, integration and eligibility for welfare tripped some switch in them that destroyed the inner cities.

Gahrie said...

Apparently the vote, integration and eligibility for welfare tripped some switch in them that destroyed the inner cities.

Damnit Freder..you almost got there.

It was the destruction of the Black family by welfare that led to violence, crime and drug use in the Black community.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Freder Frederson said...

Black people were placid and peaceful until something terrible happened in the mid-60s that turned them into irredeemable violent monsters. Apparently the vote, integration and eligibility for welfare tripped some switch in them that destroyed the inner cities.

11/19/16, 3:24 PM


The trouble with you playing stupid, Freder, is how can we tell?

Don't listen to anyone whom you can label "Republican." There are leftist critiques of the welfare state. Try Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose Senate seat should have scorched HRC like holy water.

Freder Frederson said...

Damnit Freder..you almost got there.

It was the destruction of the Black family by welfare that led to violence, crime and drug use in the Black community.It was the destruction of the Black family by welfare


So you are contending that once African Americans were able to receive welfare, they suddenly switched from being hard working and peaceable to violent criminals. So they have a genetic defect that as soon as they were provided a safety net, they became animals?

Jupiter said...

Freder Frederson said...

"Apparently the vote, integration and eligibility for welfare tripped some switch in them that destroyed the inner cities."

No Freder, that's just what all these "non-racist" white people would like to believe. The fact is that black people are genetically different than white people, and yellow people, and brown people, and so on. And these racial genetic differences do not merely affect external characteristics, they also affect behavior.

You are probably correct, that the idyllic picture Michael K draws owed much to the perception that black misbehavior directed at whites would be met with immediate and effective violence. A perception that no longer exists, despite all the bullshit we are hearing about how scared everyone is. Congratulations, Freder. For the second time since I met you, you are right about something.

So tell me, O Oracle Of The Clock That Is Stopped, what's your Theory of Detroit? Detroit is still a lovely and prosperous city? Detroit is a shithole, but it's the fault of ________? Tell me what you believe about Black People, and then I'll tell you how That Proves You're A Racist (TM)!

Terry said...

Jupiter, I did not call you a racist. I said that what you had written was racist.
If people can't help but be what they are, only then can they be irredeemable.

Birches said...

I missed that he tied the Mexican judge thing I with the Trump is weird argument....

Alex said...

Freder - yes. The moment LBJ's "Great Society" kicked in black women got the message they didn't need a father for their kids anymore and the downward spiral began. There is a direct link between "Great Society" and skyrocketing black poverty and crime.

Alex said...

gadfly... yes Trump is a bit of a narcissist. But he also is going to #MAGA. Great men are often eccentric, they are not normal people. Was Julius Caesar normal?

Jupiter said...

Terry said...
"Jupiter, I did not call you a racist. I said that what you had written was racist.
If people can't help but be what they are, only then can they be irredeemable."

What a coincidence. While I wait for Freder's Theory of Detroit, I figured I might as well go get some groceries. On the way to the grocery store, I noticed a cardboard sign nailed to the stop sign; "No Racism". Black letters, quite neat, with a frilly little black border. Nice to know the block committee is on the job, here in Gulagia.

So, I took it down and stuffed it in the "recycling" garbage can. I suppose I can expect someone to knock on my door and ask me why. So I guess I'd better get my guns loaded.

Now, Terry, what were you telling me? Oh, yeah, I'm redeemable. Or maybe not, it depends on some impenetrable code you've got. OK. I'll mention that to the first one I blow the spine out of. Don't worry, he'll be white. There aren't any blacks this far from the University.

Jupiter said...

Terry said...
"Jupiter, I did not call you a racist. I said that what you had written was racist."

Say Terry, while I'm still around, could you clarify that? I don't deny that what I wrote was racist. Do you deny that it was, and remains, true?

Terry said...

Sorry, Jupiter, I should have been more clear.
I believe that what you wrote was racist. You implied that a person's behavior was due to his race. I'm not condemning for what you wrote. Everybody can have whatever opinion they want to have. But I don't think that position is well thought out.

Gahrie said...

So you are contending that once African Americans were able to receive welfare, they suddenly switched from being hard working and peaceable to violent criminals. So they have a genetic defect that as soon as they were provided a safety net, they became animals?

...and the ignorance returns.

No. what I am saying is that the welfare rules encouraged and rewarded single mother families...so we got more of them. Children, especially boys, raised without a father in the home are more violent, more criminal and more likely to use drugs. This produces a generation of immature and irresponsible young men, who father more children on more single mothers, and the problem multiplies.

Jupiter said...


Terry said...
"Sorry, Jupiter, I should have been more clear.
I believe that what you wrote was racist. You implied that a person's behavior was due to his race."

Terry, you quoted me directly, including the part where I referred to the many exceptions to the rule I was stating. The fact is, there are behavioral traits that are much more common in some races than in others. Do you deny it? Or do you believe that some statements that are true are also racist?

Fernandinande said...

Michael K said...
I was raised by a black nannie[sic] who lived with us from the time my sister was born in 1941.


Nice anecdotes! Do you do parties?

W.E.B. du Bois: (1904)
About seventy per cent. of all prisoners in the South are black; this, however, is in part explained by the fact that accused Negroes are still easily convicted and get long sentences, while whites still continue to escape the penalty of many crimes even among themselves. And yet, allowing for all this, there can be no reasonable doubt but that there has arisen in the South since the war a class of black criminals, loafers and ne'er-do-wells who are a menace to their fellows, both black and white.
...
"6. The Negro is three times as criminal as a native white, and one and a half as criminal as the foreign white, consisting in many cases of the scum of Europe."
Negro criminality is undoubtedly far greater than white, and I have little doubt that the foregoing statement is substantially, though not numerically, correct. Perhaps a fairer comparison than that between all Negroes and all foreign-born whites would be between the Negroes and the foreign-born living in the North. In the North Atlantic division, where recent immigrants are most numerous, the Negro prisoners relative to population are three times as numerous as foreign-born white prisoners, and in the North Central division they are more than six times as numerous.

Terry said...

American Black nationalism will not end well. For reasons I need not get into, the Black nationalists want to remain a distinct minority, in tension with the larger population. The can't integrate, and they can't segregate. They can't be at the mercy of a larger population that they despise, and that they believe despises and oppresses them in turn.
The goal of Black nationalists in 2016 seems to be to use the least democratic institutions in the United States -- the Federal government and the courts -- to privilege them in opposition to the will of the majority. If the dominant white culture is oppressing them, they want to relieve the oppression by having the feds oppress the dominant white culture.
This cannot work. The federal government has its own agenda. That agenda may make the BLM crowd its allies now, but if the federal government will not be controlled by a white majority, it will not be controlled by a Black minority either.

Terry said...

Blogger Jupiter said...
. . .
Terry, you quoted me directly, including the part where I referred to the many exceptions to the rule I was stating. The fact is, there are behavioral traits that are much more common in some races than in others. Do you deny it? Or do you believe that some statements that are true are also racist?

Well, Jupiter, I think it is racist to believe that a Black who is a criminal is acting like a Black man, while a Black man who is not a criminal is not really acting like a Black man. It comes down to whether or not you believe that race determines behavior. If you believe Blackness causes criminality, that is racist by anyone's definition (I think). Personally I believe that "Blackness causes criminality" is a false statement.
I am well aware of the stats that show that being Black is associated with all sorts of nasty anti-social activity. But if that behavior is a result of "Blackness", and not choice, they aren't really human are they? They do not have moral agency.

Jupiter said...

Terry,

George Soros is not a black nationalist. I think you are a bit confused about what is going on here. The charge of racism, which you toss about like a beach ball, is a hand grenade developed specifically to destroy public figures likely to oppose the Left Agenda. They also find it convenient and useful to conduct occasional terrorist attacks, where some poor civilian says "niggardly" and they string him up and massacre his family. It scares people like me spitless, and well-meaning souls like yourself just go, "Wa'al, shucks! If'n he didn't want his kid's heads cut off and rolled down the driveway of his burning home, he shoun't a said them-thar racialist things or whatever. Heck, I dunno, can't we all jus' *luv* one another?".

Fernandinande said...

Homicide in Black and White
Homicide Victimization Rates
...... Black White Ratio
1950 47.0 03.8 12.4
1960 42.3 03.9 10.8
1980 69.4 10.4 06.7
2004 35.1 05.3 06.6
For murder offending, we have a shorter time series, and a less complete one, because offenders are not identified for every murder. Since most homicide is intraracial, offending rates for earlier periods were probably not very different from victimization rates.
...
The time series indicates that we cannot attribute the racial disparity in murder to any recent phenomenon, like crack or television or single parenting.

Terry said...

Jupiter said...
Terry,

George Soros is not a black nationalist. I think you are a bit confused about what is going on here. The charge of racism, which you toss about like a beach ball, is a hand grenade developed specifically to destroy public figures likely to oppose the Left Agenda.

I agree. That is why it is important to know what racism is. I am a white guy. I don't get accused of being a racist often because I live in a state where the white-black race thing simply isn't happening (Hawaii). The word 'colonialist' is starting to get the same usage as racism here in the 50th state.
But when the topic of racism comes up, say, regarding Trump and his voters, I always try to clarify what is meant by the term 'racist.' Most people don't have a definition other than that it's a term to describe people you don't like. "Hispanic" isn't a race, fer God's sake. It's a cultural designation. It's no more racist to say "I hate Mexicans" than it is racist to say "I hate Canadians."

Jupiter said...

Terry said...

"I am a white guy. I don't get accused of being a racist often"

Yeah, I kinda guessed. Both things. I'm a white guy too, and I self-identify as a racist, as we say here in the Identity Age. Saves others the trouble. Among ourselves, we prefer the term "Race Realists". Try it.

"That is why it is important to know what racism is."

OK. What is it? In particular, can a true statement be racist? Can *making* a true statement be racism? Or is making true statements about race maybe just being, ah, realistic? About race?

Terry said...

Oh, I've known lots of guys that openly identified themselves as racists in Hawaii. Jupiter. Because of geography, I suppose, they have tended to be the grandchildren of Okies from southern California and the central valley. There just isn't a Black underclass here. The underclass tends to be mixed race, Filipino, and Polynesian, and Portuguese, and haole, and Chinese. The ruling class, the people that make up the governing elite, the civil service, and the management class, tend to be ethnic Japanese, mixed race, and haole, in that order. It's all chop suey. There are no large populations of Blacks in a decayed inner city in Hawaii, and no white suburbia or rural areas. So it tends to be brown underclass against tan management class, instead of black versus white.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that a racist is a person who believes that race is destiny. To a racist, a white father can't identify with a Black father because the white/Black identity is more important than the father identity. To a racist, your race is who you are. Every other characteristic you have pales in importance next to race.

mockturtle said...

I once heard a young female skinhead say, "My race is my religion".

Rhythm and Balls said...

This did not happen. Trump did NOT increase any constituency's support for the Republican nominee. The converse happened: Hillary depressed the number of votes across the board. Black, white, Latino, you name it. This is obvious because both the raw vote tally totals were smaller and the number of total votes cast in traditionally Democratic urban strongholds (Detroit, Milwaukee, etc.) were far fewer than they were in 2008 and 2012.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It was the destruction of the Black family by welfare that led to violence, crime and drug use in the Black community.

Right. It was the same access to white welfare benefits that done it. Not the lack of available black fathering examples to raise those sons of sons of sons of black women raped by white slaveowners.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, Jupiter, I think it is racist to believe that a Black who is a criminal is acting like a Black man, while a Black man who is not a criminal is not really acting like a Black man. It comes down to whether or not you believe that race determines behavior. If you believe Blackness causes criminality, that is racist by anyone's definition (I think). Personally I believe that "Blackness causes criminality" is a false statement.

Maybe you should blame it on the white slaveowner rapist genes. Well, that and Hillary Clinton's mass incarceration for nonviolent "offenses" initiative.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

Is it possible that there are more important things in the governing of this country than LGBT rights ?

Guaranteeing the protection of our rights is THE most important duty of government of all, you privileged twat.

That said, there are many, many other things that the government must do. But for an American conservative to wonder how "important" the protection of rights is in governing the country, that says a lot.

Bad Lieutenant said...

R&B, there is such a thing as measure. But if you want the LGBTXYZPDQ Brigade to keep being the tail that wags the Democratic dog, by all means, keep f****** that chicken. President-Reelect Trump thanks you in advance.

Terry said...

"Guaranteeing the protection of our rights is THE most important duty of government of all, you privileged twat."
And these rights are granted or denied by the Sage and Venerable Anthony Kennedy! They spring from his head wholly formed, like a godlet from the head of a sleeping titan! Once they are pronounced, they have always existed, and once they are dismissed they never were.

Terry said...


Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
This did not happen. Trump did NOT increase any constituency's support for the Republican nominee.

Correct. This is what happened in my state, and it seems to have occurred across the nation.
But Obama's support among his constituencies dropped between 2008 and 2012. It is an open question whether "another Obama" could duplicate his 2008 or even his 2012 success.

Amanda said...

Why is Althouse's second link sub headed "People can cling to racial explanations most familiar to them" an article with Barack Obama talking about how for white working class people it's not all about race for them. How disingenuous can you be.

Rhythm and Balls said...

R&B, there is such a thing as measure. But if you want the LGBTXYZPDQ Brigade to keep being the tail that wags the Democratic dog, by all means, keep f****** that chicken. President-Reelect Trump thanks you in advance.

I would guess so. He seems to be all for it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I would guess so. He seems to be all for it.
11/19/16, 9:33 PM

I'm sure Trump is fine with you guys self sabotaging. Why wouldn't he be?

Gahrie said...

Not the lack of available black fathering examples to raise those sons of sons of sons of black women raped by white slaveowners.

For over 100 years after the end of the Civil War and slavery, the Black family was largely intact. The illegitimacy rate was higher for Black people at around 25%, but nowhere near the modern rate of 75% illegitimacy. There were many vibrant Black communities with strong middle classes all over the country.

The Great Migration of Blacks from the rural south to the northern cities broke up many of these communities, then welfare destroyed the Black family and Leftist politics destroyed the role of the church.

Just as most southern Blacks lived in areas controlled by the Democrats and were marginalized and preyed on by Democratic racists, today most urban Blacks live in areas controlled by Democrats and are marginalized and preyed on by Democratic racists.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm sure Trump is fine with you guys self sabotaging.

Sabotaging what? The Republican party? What's he doing for it, exactly?

If your party converts to one that's more progressive, due to an inability to get votes without an economic nationalist like Trump "crowning" it at the top, then that's no sabotage of us. Stop being manipulative with words.

Peter said...

"Smear artists continually tried to smear Martin Luther King as a Communist."

Racism has surely replaced communism in the McCartyite playbook. The only real difference is, there were far more actual communists in McCarthy's time than there are racists today.

Unless one defines "racism" so broadly that practically everyone is racist (as seems to be an academic sub-specialty). But then, one could do the same with communism (i.e. "fellow travelers" and such).