Thursday, July 14, 2016

Splitting the difference != fairness

Republicans, at least Republican party leadership, tends to respond to Black Lives Matter style controversies like this:

"Look, let's be reasonable here. We'll grant that Black Lives Matter has legitimate concerns, but you have to grant that cops aren't always bad."

On the surface, it sounds reasonable. If we were dealing with reasonable people, it may actually be reasonable.

In reality, here's how it cashes out:

"Okay. Your demands are crazy. But if you admit an obvious truth, we'll submit to some of your demands. Now isn't that fair?"

Of course, they scream up a storm about this - and then accept it, grudgingly, knowing that they're making progress.

Imagine if the statement was more like this:

"Look, let's be reasonable here. We'll grant that Black Lives Matter has legitimate concerns. But so does Trump and BLM's critics."

Well, that would be interesting. But the GOP establishment has absolutely no interest in taking that position, because then they'll have to actually criticize BLM - which would immediately pit them against corporations and groups they're eager to curry favor with in general.

It's not 'fair' to roll over, or concede without argument. It's cowardice. It's also the habit of the modern GOP.


JBsptfn said...

That's why, as I said, I see the politicians as puppets. Don't want to piss off the corporations giving them money.

You gotta hear this: Skeppy's blog is getting more and more retarded. Papa Plagiarizer just accused you of stalking him. He said that you were warned about it on DI or something.

Crude said...

What Linton means is 'Skep on DI accused me of stalking Linton by repeatedly bringing up his plagiarism'. DI, you know - the place he and Skep were banned from owing to voluminous stupidity, despite repeated warnings. Come to think of it, you know the only reason why they don't comment here? Because I filter their comments, which they complained about at the time. Between that and my not visiting their blogs, and only talking about them since they obsess about me, I'm apparently the worst stalker in the world.

Anyway, I'm not interested in updates about these guys. It was funny to have them link to here only to get all their nonsense exposed, but I'm not kidding when I say I don't care what they're doing. 'Skep is a retard, and Linton is just a sad old plagiarist who doesn't understand what he talks about' are not barbs I'm throwing out to insult them. They are my sincere estimation of these two. My log of humiliating them is available on DI to anyone who cares. (The vast majority do not care about these things. I'm well aware of what space I occupy on the internet.)

The Fez said...

I would argue that a lot of this posturing for "compromise" with BLM among conservatives is a byproduct of the kind of sociological thinking typically employed by the left. It's just that thinking has weaseled its way into to conservative modes of thought. That is, even as many conservatives will insist that much of what is wrong with the black community is self-inflicted, they'll play this game of giving the black community the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their predicament. There's still a tendency to see poverty, crime and bad schools as causes of poor behavior rather than effects of deleterious behavior.

For instance, how many conservatives simply take for granted that criminality is just the natural outcome of being jobless: that having no prospect for gainful employment not only does, but SHOULD predispose one toward crime? Thus, black men have no other option than to resort to crime because there are not any jobs. This kind of rhetoric is often taken at face value by conservatives when it should be rejected outright.

The conservative position on black America becomes one of unconvincing equivocation. You cannot chastise them for lack of responsibility but then tolerate the types of sociological presumptions that excuse their behavior.

Crude said...


I'd believe that, save for the fact that BLM superficially is all about racist cops and 'racist structures' and so on. If the GOP connected all those things with 'poverty causes criminality', then copping to BLM wouldn't follow.

Instead it seems that the GOP will buy into a hell of a lot more of the left-wing ideology than most people think. Or at the very least they back the same forces; at the end of the day I strongly suspect the push for 'diversity' has a lot less to do with 'fairness and equality' on the globalist level, and far more to do with 'Here's a great way to keep wages low, communities destroyed, and everyone dependent on the same general class of people'.

The Deuce said...

This is how ALL of conservatives' and Christians' so-called "compromises" with the Left have gone for decades now.

It's never "I'll concede something I have to get something I want, and in exchange you concede something you have to get something you want."

Rather it's "I'll concede half of what I have right now, and in exchange could you pinky-swear not to demand the rest of it? Pretty please?"

It's give and take, only all the give is on the conservative's end, and all the take is on the progressive's end. It's frankly pathetic.

B. Prokop said...

According to this article, ethnicity is more determinative than religion when is comes to which Presidential candidate you support. Very interesting.

Personally, I am voting third party this year. Both of the major party candidates are non-starters as far as I am concerned, and I can't reconcile myself with just not voting. So I'll find some way for my vote to "send a message". (Living in Maryland as I do, my vote doesn't really matter anyway. Clinton will win here in a landslide no matter what.) Therefore I have no pressing need to vote for a lesser of two evils. The outcome is predetermined.

The thought is actually kind of liberating.

Crude said...

Personally, I am voting third party this year.

I think you're going to be very disappointed with the selection of third-party candidates.

B. Prokop said...

Not really. I may just vote Libertarian, not because I in any way agree with them, but rather to "send a message" that our two major parties are broken, and it's time to let somebody new onto the field.

I'm starting to wonder whether the USA wouldn't be better off with some sort of multiparty parliamentary system, where governments rule by coalition. Anything's got to be better than the dysfunctional mess we have now, where no bill gets through without the support of 60 senators, where no bill even gets to a vote without the Speaker of the House allowing it to, and where nominees to various high level positions never get a hearing.

If I had three (political) wishes, one of them would be to annihilate both the Democratic and Republican Parties.