|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On July 11 2018 01:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. Your argument assumes a capitalist market is a pure meritocracy, which has never been the case. The markets devalue non-white labor simply because the white dominated market prefers to hire white workers.
My argument assumes no such thing. I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is some degree of nepotism in capital markets. I'm also willing to concede that there is some degree of racial preference. However, I fundamentally disagree with two propositions that seem to be inherent to GH's argument:
1) Whites are unique in their racial preferences in capital markets.
2) Racial preferences in the US make it unduly burdensome or even impossible for minorities to succeed in the American capitalist market.
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place.
Saying systematic racism elevates whites is not the same as saying whites wouldn't do well without racism. A better way to think of it is shifting a gaussian curve some amount to the right. Across the US population, we can assume that some number of people end up being given an opportunity because they were competing against someone at a disadvantage. If I am competing for a job with someone who the interviewer does not like from the beginning, I am more likely to get the job. The other guy would need to be much better than me to overcome the fact that the interviewer has an existing bias. This doesn't mean I am a bad candidate. It means that I didn't need to be as good of a candidate as the other guy.
|
On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society.
I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed no matter what they roll on a D20," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy.
Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould.
|
On July 11 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:11 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. Your argument assumes a capitalist market is a pure meritocracy, which has never been the case. The markets devalue non-white labor simply because the white dominated market prefers to hire white workers. My argument assumes no such thing. I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is some degree of nepotism in capital markets. I'm also willing to concede that there is some degree of racial preference. However, I fundamentally disagree with two propositions that seem to be inherent to GH's argument: 1) Whites are unique in their racial preferences in capital markets. 2) Racial preferences in the US make it unduly burdensome or even impossible for minorities to succeed in the American capitalist market.
Whites are just unique in the current capital market because they control all the levers of power in the current system. And the market, in its pure form, values the desires of people with racial bias and minorities equally. Being a minority is more difficult in many markets, as the US is a large and varied country.
|
On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould.
I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point.
|
On July 11 2018 01:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 00:37 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 00:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2018 00:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 00:07 gobbledydook wrote:
I'm sure you would like a Proletariat Revolution, because that's what it sounds like. Class struggle, us vs them, and I suppose this leads to mass incarceration of the capitalist scum and labour camps, collective production and then, as history has shown us, general starvation. But if the US is the one embracing socialism who will be the one to bully the world into sanctioning us, arming our neonazis and generally trying to make life in our country suck so we bow to US capitalist imperialism? I mean it is not like the USSR was not doing the exact same sort of things during the ColdWar for the other side. But also being far worse to its own people. The Right is not evil, the Left is not Evil, but their are Evil people on either side. People need to stop protecting the evil from their own sides and come to some compromises for the greater good. What are you thinking of when you say "the exact same sort of things"? Arming groups that were against capitalism. US arms, Iraq, USSR arms Iran. So on and so forth. They were also way more brutal to their own people. Stallin, depending on the historian you trust killed anywhere from 5 million to 60 million non combatants. There was some dick presidents, but none of them hold a candle to that. Arming groups against capitalism and arming groups against socialism aren't remotely equivalent just because they are both arming people. I love how just skip over the killing of millions of his own people. You are the mirror of the people who argue that everything the USA did was justified because the USSR is so evil. You think the USSR was justified because the US is so evil. Also, do you not remember what it was like in the eastern European countries in the 80's and 90's? Not good, the poor didn't struggle like they do here, they died. The government made their opposition disappear, they didn't just pull them over more, or treat them worse in trials. They didn't have trials! I'm not going to engage with you on matters of history because that has proven to be completely fruitless and I have no desire to hopelessly try to educate you on it. I don't think murdering innocent people is justified regardless of who does it though so you don't have to keep repeating that argument either. So all the atrocities that the USSR committed were western propaganda? There are millions of people east of the wall in Germany that want to talk to you.
This is pretty much why.
On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy.Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould.
I thought the bold was obvious, I guess I took my audience for granted a bit.
I mean I can't fully cosign the metaphor since I don't play those games, but it sounds about right.
On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point.
Capitalism needs nonwhite people to succeed (sometimes) otherwise the lie would be egregiously transparent at this point. On the other hand, the incomprehensibility of a capitalism that doesn't exploit nonwhite people is used to justify the horrors it inflicts.
|
On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point.
Do you think the hypothetical society I described would ever become non-white supremacist, just because 25% of nonwhites are rolling the good life?
If one doesn't believe capitalism will ever make the 10s and 15s converge, which I feel pretty confident in saying GH doesn't...I hope the logic is obvious. Unless you believe they can succeed to the point where they can fundamentally alter the constraints of the system-essentially garner more power than the people the system inherently favors-whether individuals can "ever" succeed is irrelevant.
|
|
|
if we are talking about theoretically best governments, my vote is for AI overmind. Theoretically it can make the best decisions for all of us!
|
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism.
|
I'm in no way saying that racism isn't a thing, because it very much is. But I fail to see how capitalism as a system is racist, or how socialism as a system is not. Furthermore, if capitalism is racist because the people with all the power are white, then what guarantee do you have that tearing it down and replacing it with your socialist utopia wouldn't keep the same white people in power, and thus in charge of the "equal" distribution, which would perhaps see that white people are distributed a few more bottles of vodka than non white people?
|
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly?
|
|
|
On July 11 2018 01:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point. Do you think the hypothetical society I described would ever become non-white supremacist, just because 25% of nonwhites are rolling the good life? If one doesn't believe capitalism will ever make the 10s and 15s converge, which I feel pretty confident in saying GH doesn't...I hope the logic is obvious. Unless you believe they can succeed to the point where they can fundamentally alter the constraints of the system, whether individuals can "ever" succeed is irrelevant.
I don't see why it couldn't be. Again, I'm more demanding in my definitions of racism and racial supremacy than most everyone else is around here. Additionally, I reject the radical egalitarianism that is intrinsic to GH's argument. "Equal protection under the law" means neither that people are entitled to equal outcomes and opportunities nor that people aren't entitled to be assholes.
|
On July 11 2018 01:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point. Do you think the hypothetical society I described would ever become non-white supremacist, just because 25% of nonwhites are rolling the good life? If one doesn't believe capitalism will ever make the 10s and 15s converge, which I feel pretty confident in saying GH doesn't...I hope the logic is obvious. Unless you believe they can succeed to the point where they can fundamentally alter the constraints of the system, whether individuals can "ever" succeed is irrelevant. I don't see why it couldn't be. Again, I'm more demanding in my definitions of racism and racial supremacy than most everyone else is around here. Additionally, I reject the radical egalitarianism that is intrinsic to GH's argument. "Equal protection under the law" means neither that people are entitled to outcomes nor that people aren't entitled to be assholes.
So do you contest that a society where 50% of white people have good lives-just because they're white-and 25% of nonwhites have good lives-just because they aren't white-is white supremacist, then? I think I'm confused.
I'm also not sure I understand what you mean by radical egalitarianism-all I see as necessary for his argumentation is that we agree we should have equality of opportunity given race, which has nothing to do with equality of outcomes except insofar as equality of opportunity converges to equality of outcomes when individuals are equal with equal preferences.
|
On July 11 2018 01:31 Schmobutzen wrote:
GH, how capitalism inextricably connected to white supremacy?
And, how opposes socialism it fundamentaly?
Well...
On July 11 2018 01:30 Plansix wrote:
The best argument for socialism is that it provides more systems to address racism and inequality within itself, rather than having to prohibit specific practices in capitalism.
That's the TLDR
Capitalism has to have systems outside of itself to restrain/modify it, otherwise it would be even more exploitative and there would be more civil unrest (coups, revolutions, war, etc...).
Racism stands in fundamental opposition to socialist principles. You can't be racist and treat people equitably and with dignity. They are mutually exclusive. No one objects to racist's capitalist credentials because they are racist, but being racist is unquestionably not socialist behavior.
|
On July 11 2018 01:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point. Do you think the hypothetical society I described would ever become non-white supremacist, just because 25% of nonwhites are rolling the good life? If one doesn't believe capitalism will ever make the 10s and 15s converge, which I feel pretty confident in saying GH doesn't...I hope the logic is obvious. Unless you believe they can succeed to the point where they can fundamentally alter the constraints of the system, whether individuals can "ever" succeed is irrelevant. I don't see why it couldn't be. Again, I'm more demanding in my definitions of racism and racial supremacy than most everyone else is around here. Additionally, I reject the radical egalitarianism that is intrinsic to GH's argument. "Equal protection under the law" means neither that people are entitled to equal outcomes and opportunities nor that people aren't entitled to be assholes.
But the reality is that racial inequality will not diminish through attrition alone. Simply removing unfair laws and securing the possibility of equal outcomes for everyone only makes it possible for the previously oppressed minorities to advance. It does not assure that they will or prevent new, creative ways for those in power to oppress them. And that is playing out even in "left leaning" sections of the country. Boston is more segregated than it was in the 1980s. Most cities across America are. Racism is a cancer and our country was in remission for a little while. But that does not mean it cannot return in new, creative ways that we do not anticipate.
Edit: GH, in the future just lead with "Socialism is better for addressing inequality/racism because...". You gotta lead with the solution, then highlight all the problems with capitalism. Because Socialism is just a well maintained capitalistic free market that assures the maximum number of people can participate in that market.
|
On July 11 2018 01:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 01:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:22 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 11 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 11 2018 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
Capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy, socialism (while potentially susceptible to white supremacy opportunists) fundamentally opposes it. Do you even understand how fundamentally racist this assertion is? You're basically claiming that nonwhite people are too inferior to succeed in the competitive market place. roflmao, that is not at all what I am saying, but thanks for that. Feel free to clarify. I don't think that I'm misreading anything. Even if you're saying that "capitalism is inextricably connected to white supremacy" in the context of white people are so entrenched at the top of the capitalist food chain that non-white people can't succeed, you're still making a racist (and patently untrue) argument that nonwhite people, sole due to their nonwhiteness, aren't capable of overcoming the barriers to wealth and success in a capitalist society. I don't want to speak for GH, but I don't read this at all as saying that nonwhites can't succeed in a capitalist society. White supremacy isn't "no nonwhites ever succeed," it's "whites need to roll higher than a 10 on a D20 to pass the good life check and nonwhites need to roll a 15." The fact there's a higher skill check is what generates the supremacy. Surely you'd agree a society which split people into good life/bad life this way would be white supremacist, right? Even if you don't agree capitalism fits that mould. I don't see how you can read GH's statement to mean anything other than capitalism is so inherently racist that it must be destroyed and replaced with socialism. So while it may not be technically accurate to state that GH is saying that nonwhites can never succeed, I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing why that is not essentially his point. Do you think the hypothetical society I described would ever become non-white supremacist, just because 25% of nonwhites are rolling the good life? If one doesn't believe capitalism will ever make the 10s and 15s converge, which I feel pretty confident in saying GH doesn't...I hope the logic is obvious. Unless you believe they can succeed to the point where they can fundamentally alter the constraints of the system, whether individuals can "ever" succeed is irrelevant. I don't see why it couldn't be. Again, I'm more demanding in my definitions of racism and racial supremacy than most everyone else is around here. Additionally, I reject the radical egalitarianism that is intrinsic to GH's argument. "Equal protection under the law" means neither that people are entitled to outcomes nor that people aren't entitled to be assholes. So do you contest that a society where 50% of white people have good lives-just because they're white-and 25% of nonwhites have good lives-just because they aren't white-is white supremacist, then? I think I'm confused. I'm also not sure I understand what you mean by radical egalitarianism-all I see if necessary for his argumentation is that agree we should have equality of opportunity given race, which has nothing to do with equality of outcomes except insofar as equality of opportunity converges to equality of outcomes when individuals are equal with equal preferences.
If you're saying that the disparity is strictly due to race and nothing else, then yeah, there's racial supremacy going on. But that's not what we're dealing with in the US.
As for the radical egalitarianism, you need to take another look at his arguments. Again, his definition of racism (and yours for that matter) is the broad version that incorporates concepts of institutional racism. Once you cross that line, you're not talking strictly about direct racial preference anymore. You're talking about altering fundamental economic and social relationships to level the playing field in terms of opportunity and outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
