Wednesday, August 24, 2016

George Soros attempting to influence the Catholic Church

Now and then one could get the impression that I really dislike liberal Christians.

If you'd like to see an example of why, here you go. Courtesy of Lifesite News.

48 comments:

B. Prokop said...

Crude, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you approving of Citizens United? I realize that this isn't the US govt, but Soros spending his money to buy influence seems right in line with that decision.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of what he did, but do not understand how you can be against it. Or is it OK to use one's wealth to influence policy only when they agree with you?

Crude said...

I've not said anything about Citizens United, which has nothing to do with this. More than that, I'm on record as believing a lot of things I consider despicable should nevertheless be legal.

Did I call for a law to make this illegal? No, and I wouldn't, because I see no reason to nor way to implement it. I'm pointing out who leftists are in bed with. Social justice on display, loud and clear: it's another tool of a billionaire atheist who collaborated with the nazis.

What do you think of Soros, Bob?

B. Prokop said...

"What do you think of Soros, Bob?"

Ha! Prior to your comment, I thought Soros was a Republican. So I guess whatever I think of him is wrong!

I can't ever seem to convince you - I don't think about politics much at all. Whole days go by without my worrying about them at all. Just look at my blog. 58 postings over the past 5 months, and not a political entry in the bunch. The subject just doesn't interest me that much.

Nate Winchester said...

Really? You thought Soros was Republican? Dang you don't know much about politics - did you know Obama is NOT republican? lol

And yes, Citizen United was the right call, there's no reason for people to lose their rights just because they gather into a group. Abolishing it would give the government a blank check for oppression.

B. Prokop said...

"Dang you don't know much about politics"

Guilty as charged. I am also a total ignoramus when it comes to pop culture and sports figures (which is a huge disadvantage in filling out crossword puzzles, I'll have you know).

People like crude appear to view everything through a political lens, whereas I find a topic's political aspect to be the least interesting thing about it. I'd go so far as to say that you can approach any given issue more clearly when you actively ignore any politics associated with it. What a wonderful world we'd live in if Democrats could support traditional marriage and Republicans could favor restrictions on gun purchases.

I think it's healthier, too - to not be angry about stuff all the time.

And yeah, I didn't know anything about Soros other than he was some sort of mega-doner. But I never paid attention to who he was donating to.

Crude said...

The 'Crude is super political whereas I am not' bit is a fib on Bob's part. But since he is playing a game of psychologizing with me, I feel free to respond in kind.

Bob's a leftist. He has cheered on the left and the Democratic party in general, for a long time - ask me to supply the links to his comments gleefully talking about his living in the bluest of the blue states, his love of Fauxcahontas, his repeated bashing of the right, and I'll follow suit. Bob knows I can follow suit.

But here's the twist. Bob's also a believing-enough Catholic who, like many other Catholics, labored under the delusion that his beliefs were at least tolerated by the left, even if not celebrated by them. A kind of armistice thing - 'The left will at least tolerate the religious among them, and their preferences. In exchange, leftist Christians stay quiet about abortion, gay marriage, etc, as much as possible. You don't have to support those things, but you do have to bite your tongue.'

Several massive stabs in the back later, and you have people like Bob. What we have here is a political outcast, someone who happily subscribed to and signal boosted the left, played by the unwritten rules, and then was culturally informed that that was not enough - he either had to sign on to gay marriage and more, or he was out. The price got a bit too high.

Of course, that doesn't mean his views have changed. It does mean that he's been cut off from what used to drive his politics. Still hasn't learned any lessons though, and if the Left would just make space for him again, he'd gladly go back to the old bit. It ain't happening, but oh well.

Nate Winchester said...

Republicans could favor restrictions on gun purchases.

They already do. (People always seem remarkably uninformed about how many gun regulations there are right now.) So congratulations! You're halfway to your ideal world!

Still hasn't learned any lessons though, and if the Left would just make space for him again, he'd gladly go back to the old bit. It ain't happening, but oh well.

Sounds a lot like Shea nowadays who thinks they would be just perfect if not the abortion & gay marriage thing.

Oh well, if Bob's learned they lied about one thing, maybe he'll eventually figure out all the other stuff he's been lied to about.

B. Prokop said...

I do not for an instant deny everything crude just posted about what I once was, which was a gleefully partisan Democrat (but not "leftist"). Again guilty as charged. But like Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus, I had an epiphany* and renounced my evil (and they were evil - extreme partisanship is a mortal sin) ways.

So yes, crude can link all he wants to - it would be no different than saying that a reformed alcoholic once drank himself under the table. No one is denying that. All those links would prove is that the Mercy of God is indeed boundless.

* Mine was no bright light from Heaven, but a reading of Canto VII of Dante's Inferno. It cut to my heart, and I repented in dust and ashes of the Error of my Ways. What crude seems to want me to do is to take up my sin once again, only this time for the opposite team in the Infernal Jousts.

Crude said...

I'll spare my comments on Bob's description of his evolution on this front, save to say it was not complete and I suspect it didn't take the path he took.

But the idea that I'm trying to encourage Bob to become, what... an alt-right member? Or ANYthing, in fact, is just nuts. I don't chase this guy down to engage in politics - he comes here. I made a post about Soros trying to influence the Church, and he's bringing up CItizen's United.

B. Prokop said...

I brought up Citizens United because I was under the impression you approved of it (Was I wrong about that? If so, then ignore everything I posted here.), and whatever Soros is doing seems to fit right in with that decision. I was curious as to how you could approve of the idea of Citizen's United yet disapprove of its consequences.

"he comes here"

I do so, because you host a great blog. Next to Victor's, it's one of the more interesting I've seen.

Mike said...

and whatever Soros is doing seems to fit right in with that decision

You might as well just claim that anything that has a butterfly effect-like impact on the election would fall under Citizens United if that is true.

The Deuce said...

I brought up Citizens United because I was under the impression you approved of it (Was I wrong about that? If so, then ignore everything I posted here.), and whatever Soros is doing seems to fit right in with that decision.

One is a court decision that said attempts to stop groups from lobbying Congress with their funds in our democratic system violates their political free speech.

The other is Catholic bishops, and possibly the Pope himself, allowing themselves to be given orders on the content of what they should preach as Christian teaching from a radical left-wing socialist Jewish atheist billionaire in exchange for big money. And (surprise!) he wanted them to drop that spiritual stuff about salvation and the Image of God in favor of left-wing political agitprop on race, economics, and immigration.

Nate Winchester said...

I was curious as to how you could approve of the idea of Citizen's United yet disapprove of its consequences.

How can God approve the idea of free will yet disapprove of the eating of the Apple? It's good that you have taken the first step of being free of leftism, but your mind is still clearly stuck on the tracks of its mental trains. We can all approve and welcome freedom of speech, without approving of everything anybody everywhere has ever said. (and that's what CU is about, the freedom of speech - opposing it means you think filmmakers should be thrown in jail)

The Deuce said...

Honestly, I don't see how you can compare the two, beyond the sketchy connection that they involve people being influenced by money. You might as well say that buying marmalade is the same as what Soros is doing.

Crude said...

I suspect I realize what's going on here with Bob: while he's got his political biases (I find his denials on the front of 'no longer a political partisan' to be silly), I think he is legitimately uninformed about various political subjects, save for a kind of loose, caricature way. Him being a leftist partisan I think is legit and clear as day. Him not knowing who Soros is, or really, even all that much about Citizens United other than 'corporations are getting the ability to do things which are mean', I also see. I imagine he's the sort who thinks alt-right is a synonym for neocon, which in turn just means 'right wing' which in TURN means 'bad'.

But on the CU front, A) as I've said, I believe in the legality of things - even the necessary legality of things - which I consider to be nevertheless abhorrent, B) I'm not a passionate defender of CU anyway, which is unrelated here since this has nothing to do with elections and thus nothing to do with Soros in this particular case, and C) I am also a very practical person, and I can tell you how far particular principles of mine go. Put short, my interest in defending the rights and freedoms of billionaires and globalists - insofar as we're talking about considerations unique to them ('the ability to spend six or seven figures on electioneering') - are minimal. In two words: fuck 'em.

Hrodgar said...

Re: B. Prokop, 26Aug, 7:24am

Since when is "extreme partisanship" always a mortal sin? Wouldn't rather depend on what you were a partisan for? "Zeal for your house consumes me," for instance, would seem to be pretty okay.

Marc Lüttingen said...

Are liberal Christians all the same?
Are conservative Christians all the same?

Crude said...

No, and I sing the praises of some. A short list, admittedly. And I intensely dislike some 'conservative' Christians.

However, if I described the key aspects of liberal Christians that I firmly regard as being essentially anti-Christian, I suspect you'll find quite the overlap of the Venn diagrams.

Crude said...

By the way, Marc. I recall years ago over at your blog was some snarky little German atheist who used to talk about how the irreligious Germans didn't really have much of a 'racism' problem (compared to the more religious US). I warned at the time that there was quite a lot of people ready and willing to immigrate to Europe, given half a chance, and that the perceived lack of problems wasn't going to last forever. I recall being laughed at and being told how the only problems were the Turks, and that's under control.

If ever the opportunity arises, let 'em know that I am laughing my ass off whenever I think of that conversation now.

Marc Lüttingen said...

I recognise at your tone you feel extremely frustrated and angry.
I don't think this is doing you any good and I honestly don't believe that this state of mind honours Christ.
I know only few things about your background, life experiences and what you went through.
But I think you'd be better off praying to God that He shows you if certain things you consider to be right might be wrong.
And I shall certainly do the same.

I haven't got any news from Andy for a long time.
I do believe that we, as Christians, have a duty to welcome and shelter anyone whose live is really threatened.
But Angela's Merkel decision to accept more than two MILLIONS of migrants was crazy. Many of them are pseudo-refugees. Many of then have no willingness to integrate themselves into the German society.

I am very critical of "Black Lives natter" and I just published this blog post

https://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/was-this-tragedy-caused-by-anti-black-racism/

My opposition to this movement has caused many progressives to call me a "racist" and "white supremacist".

I am now convinced that liberal cultural warriors aren't any better than conservative culture warriors.

But I always try to be gracious and respectful towards respectful opponents.

Best wishes and blessings.








Crude said...

Credit where it's due, Marc. You're unusual.

That said, I really do what I think is right. Do keep this in mind: you're coming around to show some sympathy with a point of view that I've long occupied. I used to be more moderate. I tried to have a 'At least we're all Christian' attitude with leftist Christians.

Then I started to notice that the leftists didn't care about God at all. The resurrection? A side-belief at best. No, what was really of interest was motivating the Church to subscribe to whatever the important secular social issues of the day were, with a bit of God-language thrown on them.

I notice, from afar, that the principal opponents to Merkel's insanity tend to be people holding crosses and having a far more traditional view of Church and State. It's the liberal Christians and (especially) atheists urging her on.

Crude said...

Besides, the appalling rise of Donald Trump makes it abundantly clear that there are still many Americans of Europeans descent who hate, resent or disdain Afro-Americans.

Hahahaha.

Why do I even bother?

And just like that, I'm reminded yet again of why I disown the Christian Left. Enjoy your muslims, Marc. May the liberal parts of Europe give way to sultans, and may the rest be blessed by God.

The Practical Conservative said...

I'm Christian, black, female and support Trump quite vigorously. It would be nice to not be considered nonexistent.

malcolmthecynic said...

If black people don't want me resenting them, they should probably stop all of that rioting and extreme violence.

It would also help me resent them less if there were less black gang-bangers and if they actually made some sort of attempt to form families instead of breeding like rodents.

But what do I know. I'm just a racist.

Crude said...

TPC,

I'm Christian, black, female and support Trump quite vigorously. It would be nice to not be considered nonexistent.

Don't worry, I'm sure you're considered either a liar or deluded by these people.

Malcolm,

But what do I know. I'm just a racist.

What has impressed me about Trump is that he's done the straightforward thing - he's denounced the gangbangers and criminals, and reached out to the population of blacks who are sick of them. That was supposed to be a non-existent group to go by both GOP and Democrat logic. We'll see what his poll numbers say about that eventually.

The Practical Conservative said...

Black gang bangers aren't breeding like rabbits, and not just because they represent a very small slice of black people that hasn't really grown via natural increase over time. Black people in general are not having kids "like rabbits" at all. The black birth rate collapsed a long time ago. Call it a side effect of single motherhood or the end game of dysgenics, but it's nearly identical to the white birth rate and has been for quite a while.

It is true that black birth is increasingly binary, with a slowly growing married pool of mothers and a shrinking but still supermajority pool of single mothers. There is relatively little working class married black birth, much like the other groups in America, the married ones are increasingly upper middle and for black women who want their kids to be around healthy masculine roles that means increasing rates of outmarriage away from native-born black men.

Marc Lüttingen said...

Hi Malcolm.

"If black people don't want me resenting them, they should probably stop all of that rioting and extreme violence."

What disturbs me about that sentence is that it involves one hell of an over-generalisation.

"Black" people aren't a monolithic group. There are as many differences between blacks as there are between "whites".
Many blacks are appalled by the violence of "Black Lives Matters" and do not feel they represent them.

I agree with you that such acts are indefensible and also completely counter-productive.

But I think you should have written:

"If proponents of Black Live Matters don't want me resenting them, they should probably stop supporting all of that rioting and extreme violence."

If an Afro-American wrote:

"If white people don't want me resenting them, they should probably stop discriminating and hating us."

I would disagree with him for the same reason.

The Practical Conservative: I have never encountered a black female conservative before. Do you think it might be possible to correspond together? My email is lotharson57@gmail.com
I have no intention to argue with you.
I am genuinely curious about your positions.

Crude: I don't expect you to become a liberal Christian.
I don't expect you to start believing that gay marriage is a good thing.
I don't expect you to support abortion, all the more so since I believe it should be avoided if the health of the woman isn't threatened.

But I think that if you call yourself a Christian (and are aware of the Sermon on the Mount), you ought to make a conscious effort to respectfully treat respectful opponents regardless of their ideas.

I've always tried to be kind towards you, even when you wrote things I totally disagree with and even when you were insulting towards other commentators on my blog.

"Enjoy your Muslims, Marc. May the liberal parts of Europe give way to sultans, and may the rest be blessed by God."

You are being quite nasty here. Apart from lumping together all Muslims as raping terrorists, you are assuming that I am happy about the current situation, even though I told you that a (small) part of the migrants are violent pseudo-refugees (who are a threat to Westerners, liberal Muslims, homosexuals, and Arab Christians alike).

By the way, Germany and France didn't invade Iraq. Without American imperialism, there wouldn't have been such atrocious destructions in Syria and in the Middle East.
So, I do believe that it is the US who should have welcomed the large majority of them.

Let us not forget that most of them aren't criminals but people who have lost everything because of us Westerners.

malcolmthecynic said...

What disturbs me about that sentence is that it involves one hell of an over-generalisation.

What disturbs me about that is that you don't realize that I'm generalizing.

I'm tired of people pretending they don't understand that that's what I'm doing. They do. So I'm not going to apologize for it.

Crude said...

I agree with Malcolm. The need to constantly self-police and forever parse one's words to exactitude is nonsensical. Especially when Marc himself will talk about how Trump's rise obviously shows how wickedly horrible and racist towards black the country is.

That said, the black culture is - for a number of reasons - rife with single moms, who are increasingly copping an attitude of 'I didn't do nothing wrong!' and 'Oh my God for some reason my kids turned out rotten, it's not my fault'. White culture has its own mass of problems, but I believe in addressing them, and being clear about their racial realities.

As for Marc, well, that warrants a post of its own.

Mike said...

Let us not forget that most of them aren't criminals but people who have lost everything because of us Westerners.

Let's get even more specific. The entire mess in Syria has literally nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is entirely the creation of Clinton and Obama through a combination of the Arab Spring and Clinton's insane war on Libya that created a weapons pipeline to the anti-regime forces in Syria.

Had none of that occurred, the Syrian civil war would probably have ended in a year or so.

malcolmthecynic said...

I think, BTW, that this is why it appears that Vox is getting increasingly radical. I don't think he is, but I think he finally, completely understands that people on the other side seriously do not give two shits how precisely you word things if you're not on their side. So, Vox just stopped caring what people who were always inclined to read him disingenuously anyway thought of him.

And good for him. It's a good lesson to learn.

Crude said...

I suspect that for Vox, what may have been the last chain to break was the realization that conservatives were part of the problem. It wasn't just the SJWs who were doing the policing, but nominal 'conservatives'.

Watching so many people go from talking about how Hillary is so terrible that she must be opposed at all costs to '#NeverTrump, because he dislikes globalists and such' was it for me as well.

malcolmthecynic said...

Yeah. When you realize that the one group you actually made an effort to play nice with is ALSO not, and never going to be, willing to give you a fair hearing, you stop caring about what they think of you at all.

So formerly where Vox might have moderated his language or been more careful to make distinctions he's now just said "Fuck it" and wrote whatever got the best rhetorical effect.

lotharlorraine said...

Crude, I want to be clear about one thing.
I wouldn't have commented on your blog if you were just a nasty conservative to me. I think you have been being consumed by anger and hatred for too long. And I really believe this is doing you no good at all.

Malcolm, while some folks might understand it this way, many others will feel insulted.

Whenever liberal culture warriors write: "White men cannot bear the idea of a female leading the mightiest country in the world" I feel really offended and angry.

This is why I think *all* such over-generalisations should be avoided.
This is a straightforward application of the Golden Rule you probably know.

Best wishes, Marc.

Crude said...

Marc,

I think you have been being consumed by anger and hatred for too long. And I really believe this is doing you no good at all.

'Consumed by anger and hatred' cashing out to... what? Snarky comments? Openly saying I have no patience for a segment of Christianity which was marking me and people like me as a monstrous hateful person even when I was noticeably more delicate and forever trying to be appeasingly careful with my words?

I express contempt for people who despise me or collude with those who do, and I am 'consumed by anger and hatred'. You buddy up with people who think the failure to service a same-sex wedding is a criminal act, worthy of firing, fining and jailing, but what, you're better because in direct conversation you're civil? No, that's not even in the realm of sensible.

As for 'many others will feel insulted' - they've turned feelings of insult into a policing weapon. And when we feel insulted or angry, we're told - and have been told - to shut up and deal with it, because freedom. We offend, innocently or not, and the rules change; our offense is 'hate', which freedom is incompatible with.

You should understand why so many people have decided that the politeness game is no longer one they wish to play.

malcolmthecynic said...

Malcolm, while some folks might understand it this way, many others will feel insulted.

You used an example of people of other races making similar generalizations about whites, and you're quite correct: When that becomes taboo to say, I'll stop generalizing about blacks.

Mike said...

This is why I think *all* such over-generalisations should be avoided.

The "liberal culture warrior" claim you cited was just wrong, which is why it should be avoided. It is absurd when one considers that the reason 2008 didn't end in a Dukakis-level annihilation of McCain was, ironically, Sarah Palin. Virtually every white male I knew was hoping McCain would win and have a medical incident that would force him out. Heck, if Margaret Thatcher were a US citizen and still alive, she could have run for the Republican nomination and won by a landslide in the primaries.

As is often the case, "liberal culture warriors" tend to be dishonest hacks. Clinton is quite literally one of the worst female politicians the Democrats could have drafted to run. She makes Elizabeth Warren look like Martha Stewart in broad appeal.

The Practical Conservative said...

It's not forbidden to insult or ridicule black people. Medium is littered with whiny black women's tales of being called real slurs and them being the ones to get fired, not the slur-sayer. Justine Sacco type events are unicorn happenings, noticeable for their sheer rarity. Since white liberals can signal approval on facebook/tumblr for "black lives mattering", they are free to be as alt-right level raciss in their offline hiring and firing as the fondest daydreams of weev. And they are. If you were concerned about black people not being sufficiently denigrated, rest assured they remain the last hired and first fired in any industries that might lead to a platform with a large audience or a paycheck above 30k a year.

But sure, a dispatcher making 23k a year might once in a while be able to get a trucker making 32k a year fired for using the n-word. One time out of six. Maybe.

I try to find the humor in it all, and sometimes I can. It is pretty funny.

Crude said...

It's not forbidden to insult or ridicule black people.

In practice, it is. You seem to be interpreting this on a personal and isolated level, in the broadest terms of 'ridicule' and 'insult'. Like 'can you call a black man a shitty mayor'. You do have to be a hell of a lot more on guard with this in general. And in terms of culture? Forget it. You can't even suggest that the black community has failures that rest largely on their own shoulders. Hell, even criticizing rioters - literal rioters and looters - is an area people are trying to ward off. Hence 'Thug is just another word for nigger, even if you're attributing it to looters'.

I'm not sure if you're just misinterpreting the context people are speaking in here or what. I don't think anyone's been talking about 'nigger' here. There's a level of eggshell-walking that takes place way, way beyond that, in an absurdly common way. The weird tabooization of nigger to 'the n-word', spoken in hushed tones even by the alt-right, is something I find absurd, but that's second compared to the simple inability to directly criticize.

malcolmthecynic said...

I find the idea that there is no special treatment given to black folks to be absurd on its face.

Here is a true story:

Very recently - in the last two weeks recently - some black guy in my neck of the woods decided to make a stink and started some movement where he pointed out that most elected officials in my county were white. There was absolutely no point to this. He had no argument. He had nobody specific to accuse. He had no evidence at all racism was involved and no plan to change things. His whole schtick was to point a metaphorical megaphone in people's faces and yell "ISN'T THIS WRONG? HUH? HUH????"

My dad is a town committeeman. He's also not an idiot. He knew not to give this dude ammunition. All he said was "We're elected officials. Do you expect us to resign? If you're concerned, run or promote a candidate yourself". Since this statement was obvious and eminently readable, it was of course not quoted by any of the sources covering this moron.

Some idiot - in a bit of grim irony, an SJW - made the mistake of actually trying to refute this guy's claim. He said that on his town council they actually had a "negro council member". So THEY weren't racist!

Negro.

Uh-oh.

This was literally the only thing anybody said that the media could spin as remotely racist. They talked to said negro council member. She said "Who cares? I know him. He's not racist." They asked another member of the council. He said "Eh, the word is outdated and he probably shouldn't have used it, but I know him and he's not racist."

This wouldn't do. So the media went and found the head of ANOTHER STATE'S branch of the NAACP to find some clown who went and talked about how terrible it was for him to use this awful, racially charged word, and the fact that he used it meant the whole town was probably racist or something.

This guy is currently still out there, stirring up trouble. He still has no concrete policies. But he hasn't been laughed off, and the committeemen still need to pretend to take him seriously lest they be cast, like our previous SJW friends, to the political wolves.

And If you tell me that a situation remotely comparable to this could happen with the races reversed, I will laugh in your face.

Wood said...

"I hire people of color." Enlightened.
"I hire colored people." Bigot.

"I support the United Negro College Fund." Enlightened
"I support my negro colleague." Bigot.

Weird times

The Practical Conservative said...

So Malcolm's father doesn't lose his position, some rambling joe rambles away, and this is supposed to prove blacks don't have a higher unemployment rate and lower acceptance rate with higher credentials for "good jobs"?

I mean, actual statistics show that blacks don't get anything but a couple of little crumbs and the example is quite like that of a mom of a "transgender" kid.

Oh wait, the white mom of the "transgender" kid will actually get school policy for the *entire state* modified to accommodate her Munchausen by proxy need for attention. This black guy that is supposed to be the SICK BURN YALL proof that we live in "Black-run America" will never get that.

All you did was prove my point. Black (men) get humored very, very, very slightly and get no actual concrete anything, random crazy white women can get the entire state policy for a million or so children changed on their personal whim.

You are seizing upon the media pushing a narrative and ignoring the practical realities on the ground. Who cares if some intern writes a whiny piece about not saying thug when in practice, the people who click like to that article say thug all the time with zero consequences in the workplace and just hire white gays to check their AA box. Or white men who call themselves women.

I'm a housewife, I don't work for a wage, but people who do work are not the ones claiming blacks live a charmed life in America where they can snap their fingers and get whitey tap dancing and making it rain on them all day erry day.

TLDR; omg like ur being raciss the wrong way! you should be happy to hear that black people are being treated as poorly as ever by your fellow whites and remaining unemployed when they apply for jobs at 2x and 3x the white rate even when they have the credentials and "speak so well".

or was that not the point of whining that you don't get to call black people slurs at work? because you can, as long as you claim to be liberal about something else.

Crude said...

and this is supposed to prove blacks don't have a higher unemployment rate and lower acceptance rate with higher credentials for "good jobs"?

No one brought any of this up at all, so that looks like a pretty blatant topic shift. It's a completely different subject.

As for transexuals, I highly - highly - doubt that anyone here is going to argue that Team LGBT doesn't get equally absurd and massively out of whack language policing as well.

You are seizing upon the media pushing a narrative and ignoring the practical realities on the ground. Who cares if some intern writes a whiny piece about not saying thug when in practice, the people who click like to that article say thug all the time with zero consequences in the workplace and just hire white gays to check their AA box.

In practice, most people keep their mouths shut out of fear. The 'thug' thing is recent, but it's an example of how this language policing is both far-reaching and never-ending. Nor is it just the word nigger (which is itself absurdly policed out of existence in just about any typical forum) - any calls of accountability for black culture, or recognizing that black culture is itself heavily flawed, is practically forbidden. To suggest that the black community is suffering from self-inflicted wounds is to invite racism charges immediately. To say that about whites is to invite immediate nods of agreement, even when the charges are outrageous.

I'm a housewife, I don't work for a wage, but people who do work are not the ones claiming blacks live a charmed life in America where they can snap their fingers and get whitey tap dancing and making it rain on them all day erry day.

Who in the world is saying this?

This is like pointing out that the PCness with Team LGBT is absurd, where people even at high levels get fired or hounded into resigning for so much as it being discovered as opposing gay marriage... and then someone screams back that gay men are STILL the most likely to die of AIDS and also horrible laws keep them from giving blood so don't worry, the gay community still have problems and... therefore what you said about the language policing, the inability to criticize, is invalid. By magic.

It's like you're saying that the cultural and even legal capability to discuss these issues MUST be okay, because blacks have poor economic prospects. Logical and reasonable, that is not. Even if those economic prospects are, in fact, poor - which has not been a bone of contention here.

Wood said...

TPC,


"So Malcolm's father doesn't lose his position, some rambling joe rambles away, and this is supposed to prove blacks don't have a higher unemployment rate and lower acceptance rate with higher credentials for "good jobs"?"


No. Malcolm's point as I took it was, reasonably, that modern blacks and certain white enablers are so inoculated with leftist ideology that the circumstantial existence of more whites than blacks in any setting is definitionally evidence of racism. And the underlying narrative there is that a "community" that glories in its commitment to political liberalism and cultural degeneracy is hardly one for which we should see who can win the contest of the most maudlin displays of public pity. In other words, blacks are very much in the same rotten situation as whites in our political commitments and moral compass. How all that turns out for the specific communities involved in modern America may or may not be of some interest, but it is no way some some unique-to-blacks societal scourge that if we could only fix we'd have gotten the ball rolling in the right direction. Our problems are liberalism and immorality. Whites and blacks and red and yellow and purple are no different, essentially.

Crude said...

Looking back on this conversation, what seems odd is the suggestion that I'm sitting here going, 'Man, I don't like blacks. I sure hope they fail!'

I don't think that, and I don't think anyone else here does. I would like blacks to succeed. And whites. And eskimos. Even, dare I say it, muslims. In a general sense of prospering.

How that's accomplished, and why - to whatever degree - it is not currently happening, is another matter. And I'm getting extremely tired with the idea that the failures are the faults of whites - largely or even exclusively - and as such there needs to be special rules in place where whites are culturally and openly shit on, while any criticism of blacks must be policed aggressively. Or anyone else, for that matter.

malcolmthecynic said...

So Malcolm's father doesn't lose his position, some rambling joe rambles away, and this is supposed to prove blacks don't have a higher unemployment rate and lower acceptance rate with higher credentials for "good jobs"?

Wood has responded very well, but I will note blankly that I neither said nor implied any such thing in any case.

I don't have much to add to that except to point out that you're making WAY more assumptions in this discussion than anybody else.

The Practical Conservative said...

I'm saying that I'm black and whites can totally say blacks commit crime at a higher rate, or use slurs, and it's the black people complaining about that who get fired, because I've heard them do it and seen the black people get fired, and there's plenty of documentary evidence to that effect as well.

The men in dresses and gay white men have WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more power than blacks do, it's not equal in the least.

Just lol at the idea that there's any consequences. They say whatever about blacks just fine. If you don't feel you can, that sounds a lot more like a personal problem to me than documented reality.

Only genuinely powerless whites suffer consequences and not very often. If you're a policy wonk making six figures, you can say whatever and your black assistant will just have to lump it no matter how much they complain on twitter. There will be no mobs. But genuinely powerless everyone suffers consequences, as far as that goes.

I started out rebutting the notion that blacks run around at a 100% level committing crime while popping out nineteen welfare babies, which malcolm was very careful, sjw type careful to hedge and not explicitly state so he could walk back the idea that he was talking about all blacks as though they were the same, which he obvs. was.

I suppose we're all more radical now. It must be the viking genetics, they really outmarry when they do it.

Crude said...

I'm saying that I'm black and whites can totally say blacks commit crime at a higher rate, or use slurs, and it's the black people complaining about that who get fired, because I've heard them do it and seen the black people get fired, and there's plenty of documentary evidence to that effect as well.

Great, then try providing it. Because I have plenty of 'documentary evidence', as well as direct experience, that this is not the case. I also have 'documentary evidence' that even in the cases where a white person says something "offensive to (insert group here)" and they do -not- have hell rain down upon them, that it is no guarantee that it won't happen eventually for that precise event. It remains an issue they have to keep guard about, forever. Which is why, in practice, whites - even those "policy wonks" making six figures - generally keep their mouths shut unless they are out of the professional world altogether.

And if you doubt that, I suggest that maybe you're a bit too focused on going for the gold in the victim Olympics than in dealing with reality.

Only genuinely powerless whites suffer consequences and not very often.

Then genuinely powerless whites exist in freaking abundance. And most don't 'suffer consequences' because they conform, and keep their mouths shut - the ones that don't, suffer. I know, the idea of 'don't do the thing that will lead to your punishment' is foreign to a considerable subset of the population of the powerless, but some people's cultures encourage them so. The issue is when - you may be familiar with this - the punishable action shouldn't be punishable to begin with.

I started out rebutting the notion that blacks run around at a 100% level committing crime while popping out nineteen welfare babies, which malcolm was very careful, sjw type careful to hedge and not explicitly state so he could walk back the idea that he was talking about all blacks as though they were the same, which he obvs. was.

Yeah, it's not doing much for your case here when your defense is "I know you didn't say what I attacked you over, but you see, I was saying what I know you REALLY wanted to say but actually didn't." And suggesting that Malcolm is "SJW-like" for NOT carefully parsing his language until he finds the theoretical inoffensive mean is just bizarre.

No, I think the most SJW-like person in the conversation is the one complaining that it doesn't matter if whites are punished or targeted for this or that because, in the great victim Olympics, blacks overall have things worse and therefore white complaints are invalid. After all, 'last hired, first fired!' You may as well have said 'But that's punching UP, so it's okay!'

I also notice that -that- generalization flies. Funny how it's the stuff of offense to make a negative generalization about blacks, but as usual the victimhood generalization is A-OK. 'First pregnant, last married' probably wouldn't fly either, despite there being one hell of a lot more evidence - statistical and otherwise - for that claim.

Tell me that Malcolm's initial generalization was factually wrong, and I'll hear you out. Tell me that his initial generalization was uncalled for, right or wrong, and I'll talk. But you're doing something else - you're saying that no, there's no witch-hunting or fear-of-witch-hunting issue among whites on these topics. That despite firing after high profile firing, despite the constant attempts to take down Trump for -vastly- less, despite the obvious culture of academia and otherwise, that it all doesn't count because - for some mysterious reason - statistics show a higher-than-expected prevalence of non-blacks trying to avoid being around blacks in professional situations.

Goodness, other that wicked unfair racial-hatred, I can't imagine why. It is a mystery.