Cricket Betting Site Betway

View Poll Results: Are white supremacists/Nazis evil?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes they are evil

    34 94.44%
  • No they are not

    2 5.56%
Page 12 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 501
Like Tree226Likes

Thread: Do you think white supremacists and Nazis are evil?

  1. #166
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,917
    I think there's a bit of confusion going on between "fair" or "meritocratic" and just here. For example, if two guys own blocks of land but one block of land is significantly more fertile/has more valuable resources/is in a much better location than the other, then of course their outcomes under a hypothetical free market system are likely to be significantly different even if the two guys are equally as gifted/inventive/hard-working. This clearly isn't meritocratic insofar as outcome is not a simple function of personal qualities on behalf of the two guys but also depends on variables which are completely out of their control. You could argue it's just based on process arguments (which is what libertarian philosophy a la Nozick argues) but the tension between the two is why a lot of people shy away from making that argument explicitly.
    hendrix likes this.
    citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?

  2. #167
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Really not sure Friedman in Chile is a great example, unless this free market also involves people being dropped from helicopters at 5000ft.
    Maybe it does, man. Maybe it does.

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

    Code:
    Pixie Caramels won by an Innings and 258 runs.

  3. #168
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I don't think he's a Nazi, but I also don't really understand how American conservatism adds up without white supremacy. If wealth is distributed in any way that's remotely fair, and white people have 20x more than black people, surely that makes white people better than black people? Is there a way round that conclusion that I'm missing?
    This post astounded me a few days ago. I thought I'd take a while off so I responded with a reasoned argument and not the emotionally-charged garble I instinctively wanted to spew forth. Am I right in assuming you're specifically referring to conservatives here rather than libertarians, and that therefore I don't actually have defend to an accusation of myself as a white supremacist here? Assuming such I think I can proceed.

    The key here is in recognising that American conservatives usually don't think the outcomes themselves are perfectly fair. There are a number of reasons they don't respond to this in the way people on the left do by calling for further government intervention in the economy to rectify the unfairness, and these include:

    * a belief that while the outcomes aren't fair, the process is fair (or as fair as a process could be), and the the latter is a better or more important measure of fairness
    * a belief that fair outcomes are not as important a goal - either in this instance after some internal balancing, or overall as a general principle - as one or more other things that they believe leftist policies would run counter to, such as overall wealth, median living standards or freedom
    * a belief that a large cause of the unfairness in these outcomes is some policy they don't support - either a policy that doesn't exist anymore but is having lasting effects that will wither over time, or a current policy popular with non-conservatives that they think is having some sort of unintended consequence

    I know some conservatives just straight up are racist, don't really believe any of above and advocate for conservative policies because they think they'll advances their racist causes. On top of that a lot of people are just emotionally aligned with conservatives and haven't really thought these things through - not everyone is very thoughtful or even interested more generally in these things, and they just pick a side and essentially sign up to the package (this happens on both sides equally IMO). But if we're talking about people like Shapiro who have thoughtfully come to a conclusion on these positions, then one or more of the above apply.

    Now I'm sure you can't wait to tell me why you disagree with conservatives on all the above points, but I'm trying to suggest they're right. Of course you largely disagree, because you don't support American conservatism. I don't really either agree - I'm a degenerate, idealistic, libertarian hippie to these guys. But it absolutely can work without white supremacy if you believe one or more of the above points. It really surprised me that you actually held that position.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 12-10-2017 at 10:16 PM.
    Ausage, GIMH and Ikki like this.

  4. #169
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Inequity can occur when there is fraud and things of this nature but that is why there are courts of law. Otherwise, it seems you've dropped a clanger here.?
    I hate to say gotcha, but there's no way you can believe that fraud is the only way that inequity can occur in a free system. That's absolutely ridiculous. No liberal economist or philosopher would agree with that statement.

    It's also ridiculous to say that unfairness won't occur in a free system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    "You don't look like me in this world without being firm on what you want to do."

    - Hashim Amla.
    Quote Originally Posted by DriveClub View Post
    He bowls with a lot of heart, his heart makes the ball bounce more


  5. #170
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    This post astounded me a few days ago. I thought I'd take a while off so I responded with a reasoned argument and not the emotionally-charged garble I instinctively wanted to spew forth. Am I right in assuming you're specifically referring to conservatives here rather than libertarians, and that therefore I don't actually have defend to an accusation of myself as a white supremacist here? Assuming such I think I can proceed.

    The key here is in recognising that American conservatives usually don't think the outcomes themselves are perfectly fair. There are a number of reasons they don't respond to this in the way people on the left do by calling for further government intervention in the economy to rectify the unfairness, and these include:

    * a belief that while the outcomes aren't fair, the process is fair (or as fair as a process could be), and the the latter is a better or more important measure of fairness
    * a belief that fair outcomes are not as important a goal - either in this instance after some internal balancing, or overall as a general principle - as one or more other things that they believe leftist policies would run counter to, such as overall wealth, median living standards or freedom
    * a belief that a large cause of the unfairness in these outcomes is some policy they don't support - either a policy that doesn't exist anymore but is having lasting effects that will wither over time, or a current policy popular with non-conservatives that they think is having some sort of unintended consequence

    I know some conservatives just straight up are racist, don't really believe any of above and advocate for conservative policies because they think they'll advances their racist causes. On top of that a lot of people are just emotionally aligned with conservatives and haven't really thought these things through - not everyone is very thoughtful or even interested more generally in these things, and they just pick a side and essentially sign up to the package (this happens on both sides equally IMO). But if we're talking about people like Shapiro who have thoughtfully come to a conclusion on these positions, then one or more of the above apply.

    Now I'm sure you can't wait to tell me why you disagree with conservatives on all the above points, but I'm trying to suggest they're right. Of course you largely disagree, because you don't support American conservatism. I don't really either agree - I'm a degenerate, idealistic, libertarian hippie to these guys. But it absolutely can work without white supremacy if you believe one or more of the above points. It really surprised me that you actually held that position.
    I think w.r.t libertarianism it falls under objections to the violent original distribution of wealth, which we spoke about before.

    I completely understand objections to leftist solutions, and have varying amounts of time for those arguments. FWIW I think arguing that the process by which wealth was distributed was fair is undeniably racist, considering what that process actually was. But the others are coherent enough with non-racist beliefs.

    But I was speaking of the specific belief that the distribution on wealth is approximately meritocratic. That people, more or less, have what they deserve. I don't think that's a belief you can hold in conjunction with non-racist beliefs. It has to be 'the full set of conceivable attempts to fix this gross injustice will inevitably make it worse' or 'relative to other concerns it's not important enough to justify doing anything about'. I don't think many conservatives genuinely believe those arguments (your Paul Ryans etc are very much in the 'rich because we're better' camp). But that is still a bit of a roll back from my previous statement.

  6. #171
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    But I was speaking of the specific belief that the distribution on wealth is approximately meritocratic.
    I don't think the concepts of meritocracy and fairness are quite the same thing, though. Kids born to poor and/or uncaring parents usually end up with less well-paid jobs than those born in more favourable circumstances -- this is unfair but I don't think it's unmeritocratic. For me to consider this sort of thing unmeritocratic they'd have to miss out on more well-paid jobs for reasons other than their ability to actually do them, and while I'm sure the amount of times this happens is non-zero (esp. in the case of minorities), I don't really believe it's a large contributor to the statistics you cited (and I suspect most conservatives would argue with me over just how close to zero it is, as well). The real unfairness lies in their relative lack of opportunity to acquire the skills to do the jobs well and the results this creates, but that's not really a concern of merit. I don't really think the distribution of wealth is approximately meritocratic, but I can see how conservatives could without being white supremacists, because they could point to unfairness of the starting points as a precise reason for the unfairness of finishing positions without ceding anything about the meritocracy of the process in between.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    FWIW I think arguing that the process by which wealth was distributed was fair is undeniably racist, considering what that process actually was.
    Conservatives aren't calling for a return to slavery or Jim Crow though. When I say they mean the process is fair I mean they think the process they advocate for now is fair. I think most of them would agree that it would create unfair results sometimes, particularly from an unfair starting point (like right after decades of slavery and forceful segregation), but they think the current process is a better measure of fairness than the outcomes or indeed a long-term view of process. Now you might argue that a process advocated other than at the very starting point can only be fair if it addresses any unfairness that came before it, but conservatives would simply disagree with this.

    I think there are lots of problems with these views so I don't have a great interest in continuing to defend them, but I can absolutely see how this view 'works' without white supremacy. I certainly don't think Shapiro for example thinks blacks end up with less wealth because they inherently suck at life.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 13-10-2017 at 03:30 AM.
    Ausage, GIMH, vcs and 1 others like this.

  7. #172
    International Coach StephenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    South Africa / UK
    Posts
    11,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    But I was speaking of the specific belief that the distribution on wealth is approximately meritocratic. That people, more or less, have what they deserve. I don't think that's a belief you can hold in conjunction with non-racist beliefs. It has to be 'the full set of conceivable attempts to fix this gross injustice will inevitably make it worse' or 'relative to other concerns it's not important enough to justify doing anything about'. I don't think many conservatives genuinely believe those arguments (your Paul Ryans etc are very much in the 'rich because we're better' camp). But that is still a bit of a roll back from my previous statement.
    I dont believe that is true. Not that wealth is distributed meritocratic manner. (But how is merit based, intelluctual merit Or merit based on deeds? that is another discussion).

    I think the idea you are trying to get across is less racism specfic. But more attributed to self-importance, arrogance and superiority, and belief you (or your associated group) deserves more/better; which can be racist but not specific to racisim.
    "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they’ve found it."

    "I have neither the time nor crayons to explain it to you...."

  8. #173
    International Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,257
    These figures would disturb a white-supremacist, I don't think conservatives care that in fact Asian American's are the highest earners

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_hous ehold_income
    GIMH, Ausage and Ikki like this.

  9. #174
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I don't think the concepts of meritocracy and fairness are quite the same thing, though. Kids born to poor and/or uncaring parents usually end up with less well-paid jobs than those born in more favourable circumstances -- this is unfair but I don't think it's unmeritocratic. For me to consider this sort of thing unmeritocratic they'd have to miss out on more well-paid jobs for reasons other than their ability to actually do them, and while I'm sure the amount of times this happens is non-zero (esp. in the case of minorities), I don't really believe it's a large contributor to the statistics you cited (and I suspect most conservatives would argue with me over just how close to zero it is, as well). The real unfairness lies in their relative lack of opportunity to acquire the skills to do the jobs well and the results this creates, but that's not really a concern of merit. I don't really think the distribution of wealth is approximately meritocratic, but I can see how conservatives could without being white supremacists, because they could point to unfairness of the starting points as a precise reason for the unfairness of finishing positions without ceding anything about the meritocracy of the process in between.



    Conservatives aren't calling for a return to slavery or Jim Crow though. When I say they mean the process is fair I mean they think the process they advocate for now is fair. I think most of them would agree that it would create unfair results sometimes, particularly from an unfair starting point (like right after decades of slavery and forceful segregation), but they think the current process is a better measure of fairness than the outcomes or indeed a long-term view of process. Now you might argue that a process advocated other than at the very starting point can only be fair if it addresses any unfairness that came before it, but conservatives would simply disagree with this.

    I think there are lots of problems with these views so I don't have a great interest in continuing to defend them, but I can absolutely see how this view 'works' without white supremacy. I certainly don't think Shapiro for example thinks blacks end up with less wealth because they inherently suck at life.
    Surely this has to be incoherent with respect to their other beliefs. I can't imagine that any conservative would agree that I could steal all of your stuff and then refuse to return it on the grounds that "the process from this point on is fair".

  10. #175
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Munificent_Fool View Post
    America does not have a free market economy and nor is it meritocratic. Their economy depends crucially on the state sector. Not to know this is to not even be in the discussion.
    It has it to an extent and certainly certain industries are far less regulated. It's a matter of degrees in some senses. And pre-21st century, you're talking about a very free society, no income tax, no reserve bank, regulations almost non-existent.


    What on earth are you talking about? Yeah let's look at an industry which is driven by technology funded almost entirely by the public for over 40 years.
    Er, what?

    lol what?
    I think you need to research a bit.

    Under very specific conditions did Smith argue for markets, the reasons for which he gave being mostly fallacious and fantasy.
    LOL, what nonsense is this? Adam Smith advocated capitalism - it wasn't just something he entertained in niche conditions - and is often called "the father of capitalism". The term invisible hand came from Adam Smith. I don't know what you're referring to re rest, but what you've said so far suggests you're speaking outside your knowledge.
    Last edited by Ikki; 13-10-2017 at 01:41 PM.
    ★★★★★

  11. #176
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    I hate to say gotcha, but there's no way you can believe that fraud is the only way that inequity can occur in a free system. That's absolutely ridiculous. No liberal economist or philosopher would agree with that statement.

    It's also ridiculous to say that unfairness won't occur in a free system.
    You have to define what you're saying as I don't think they mean what you think they do. So tell us in which instances libertarians or free market proponents would consider a free market inequitable or unfair in a way that would construe a fault in the system. I hate to pick on you but you've made a habit of using reserved terms in a completely misplaced way. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
    Last edited by Ikki; 13-10-2017 at 12:46 PM.

  12. #177
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbacks View Post
    These figures would disturb a white-supremacist, I don't think conservatives care that in fact Asian American's are the highest earners

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_hous ehold_income


    I don’t think that anyone cares too much about what rich people earn, but rather how they derive their wealth and power, and how they use it within society.

    If wealth and power is derived through corruption, or is used to exploit or abuse a certain group of people then that’s when grievance starts. Otherwise no.

    Unfortunately, there is little doubt that ethnic groups exploit other ethnic groups as their first choice, and that this holds true on a global scale. And so the apprehension in any given society (yes even ‘white’) is whether it is being exploited or abused, or going to be exploited or abused, by a competing ethnic group.

    Sounds all very ‘Darwinian’ and depressing I know, but I can’t help reality. Historically speaking, different ethnic groups have been consistently shown to despise each other no matter what geographical area you look at. If there is a detente then it has been imposed by a simple balance of power and numbers. Either that or because one ethnic group has been dominated to the extent that it lacks the simple means to fight back.

    At least, that is how I read my history books. I really would like to reach a different conclusion for obvious reasons, but can’t if I am to be brutally honest with myself. Neither do I expect the paradigm of the past 10,000 years to change much just because SJWs exist on some 21st century college campuses.

    Bottom line - under no circumstances allow yourself to become part of an ethnic minority because your fate will be that of the Rohingya, Kurds, Greeks (15th century to 1832)) or European Zimbabweans in the Mugabe era - and there’s nothing that you will be able to do about it.

    (Some mirror)
    Last edited by watson; 13-10-2017 at 07:25 PM.

  13. #178
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Surely this has to be incoherent with respect to their other beliefs. I can't imagine that any conservative would agree that I could steal all of your stuff and then refuse to return it on the grounds that "the process from this point on is fair".
    Consistency isn't exactly their forte, or they'd become libertarians.

    But more seriously I think they just see it as a fundamentally different thing if the unfairness is generational. If you stole their stuff they wouldn't start advocating for a different process -- they'd still advocate for the same one but point out that as per the process they advocate for, if you steal stuff then you give it back and face some sort of legal punishment. They would argue that a process advocated for that didn't include this sort of mechanism would be inherently unfair moving forward as well, rather than simply inadequate in addressing past unfairness.

    If your great great grandparents have stolen stuff and you've benefited from it then it's a different case, and I suspect they'd make some sort of legal positivist argument about the law at the time as well (which I'd find dire, but not because I think they're white supremacists). If your theft was somehow legal they'd simply argue for a change in process moving forward to prevent it happening again, rather than trying to punish you with retrospective legislation for a legal act. By this point we're well into "stuff I don't really agree with at all" though, as I'm sure you're aware given you watched that Ben O'Neill video I posted a while back.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 13-10-2017 at 08:34 PM.

  14. #179
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    30,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Consistency isn't exactly their forte, or they'd become libertarians.

    But more seriously I think they just see it as a fundamentally different thing if the unfairness is generational. If you stole their stuff they wouldn't start advocating for a different process -- they'd still advocate for the same one but point out that as per the process they advocate for, if you steal stuff then you give it back and face some sort of legal punishment. They would argue that a process advocated for that didn't include this sort of mechanism would be inherently unfair moving forward as well, rather than simply inadequate in addressing past unfairness.

    If your great great grandparents have stolen stuff and you've benefited from it then it's a different case, and I suspect they'd make some sort of legal positivist argument about the law at the time as well (which I'd find dire, but not because I think they're white supremacists). If your theft was somehow legal they'd simply argue for a change in process moving forward to prevent it happening again, rather than trying to punish you with retrospective legislation for a legal act. By this point we're well into "stuff I don't really agree with at all" though, as I'm sure you're aware given you watched that Ben O'Neill video I posted a while back.
    Right, but surely the inter-generational-laundering conflicts with their view of inheritance? It's like 'we aren't responsible for the ill-gotten gains of our ancestors. We are of course going to keep them though.'

  15. #180
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    57,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Right, but surely the inter-generational-laundering conflicts with their view of inheritance? It's like 'we aren't responsible for the ill-gotten gains of our ancestors. We are of course going to keep them though.'
    I think most of their hand-washing when it comes to generational unfairness comes from their legal positivism rather than any inherent difference they see with it.

    If someone does something that's both legal and considered to essentially be an unfair process by them, conservatives don't tend to argue for new retrospective laws -- they just tend to argue for laws to try to stop it happenning again. This is one of my most fundamental disagreements with them so I doubt I'm doing the position proper justice, but I think that's how they see it. They could therefore see inheritance as a perfectly fair process even if they recognised some of the results were unfair (again, see: process vs results as a good measure of fairness) given past injustices that fall outside the process they're advocating for.

    Beyond that, and I know this is a bit of a cop out, but I just don't think they're perfectly consistent. I think there are some inherent flaws and contradictions we're touching on, but I think these are created by them trying to balance different values and ideas against each other rather than the whole thing being a front for white supremacy.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 14-10-2017 at 02:15 AM.

Page 12 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How evil are you?
    By Xuhaib in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 19-11-2009, 03:15 PM
  2. Evil
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 08:54 PM
  3. Stats are evil
    By pasag in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 21-09-2007, 12:22 PM
  4. Louis Theroux and the Nazis
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-04-2007, 01:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •