The Eradication of Liberal Values in the West

[Anonymous No.15735218]

Ideas and values that were fundamental to the creation of contemporary Western societies are under attack today.
The freedom of speech, or, more specifically, the ability to freely and actively discuss ideas outside the norm, is increasingly being curbed in the name of "safety" and progressivism. Labels denoting full and unmitigated moral evil such as "racist," "sexist," "transphobic," and more are expanding in scope in definition to now include good-will speech and discussion and even silence.
"Equality before the law" is being eroded away, both by the unjust influence of those with enough wealth to turn the pursuit of justice into a game to be won by the most clever and well-equipped rather than the most innocent, and by those who posit that "equality after the law" instead is the foundation of a fair and just society.
Countless examples of the sad and sorry state of Western society abound.

What causes this? Is this the failing of the education system, wherein traditional history and Enlightenment values such as reason and individuality are being obscured and avoided in favor of "more practical" pursuits? Is it the pursuit of diversity of sexual preference, sex, and skin color at the expense of diversity of opinion in industry and academia? Is it the sad but inevitable culmination of a successful liberal order? Is it something else entirely? What do you think anon

[Anonymous No.15735234]

2 words
>ontologized irrationality
not even antienlightment thinkers were this wrong.
also, Voltaire and Victor Hugo would have been supporters of BLM

[Anonymous No.15735254]

There's more to free speech than just being able to say a bunch of dirty words. And more to the point, people who are "race realists" or whatever are almost always arguing in favor of their foregone conclusions

[Anonymous No.15735258]

>spending is speech
It's like they were asking for it.

[Anonymous No.15735264]

>>15735218
Biblical Christian values built the West. Liberal enlightenment values are what's destroying it now. All of these things you hate - progressivism, feminism, Marxism - they're all equal products of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, and they're contrary to Scripture.

[Anonymous No.15735281]

>>15735254
>>15735218
o think an unspoken question is the use of postmodernist critique to destabilize classical liberalism. instead of simply ofering the opritunity for freedom, and giving neative rights, the historyof those freedoms are decontucred and positive rights of an arbitrary extenf are being provided. we often talk about the devide between neoliberalism and socialism/fasicm, but not the one between classical liberlism and neoliberalism, which are connected, yes, but have a few core irreconcilable epistomological principles that conflict with one another.

[Anonymous No.15735371]

>>15735234
Care to elaborate a little? Voltaire might have supported BLM but likely would have been cancelled and de-platformed quickly after people realized his thoughts on race. I find it just as likely to believe the opposite.

>>15735254
Do you not believe that people who are "anti-racists" are also "almost always arguing in favor of their foregone conclusions"? Either way, restricting the freedom of speech in this respect is insidious and dangerous. This is a perfect example of Mill's view that either side likely contains a very small part of the truth, and that real exchange between either side would only be massively helpful to both sides.

>>15735258
Money as speech is less of a liberal principle than it is a US Supreme Court decision though. Does any liberal thinker comment on this?

>>15735264
The Western tradition existed before Christianity. The values that are destroying the West are hardly liberal in direct origin. Alternatively, isn't it true that liberalism and the Enlightenment were products of Christian values, or at least of the heavy hand of Christian rule for over a thousand years?

>>15735281
What are some of those irreconcilable principles? Do you use neoliberalism in the common definition, as in the more economically geared liberalism promoiting laissez-faire policy? That that tramples on some principles of classical liberalism I agree, so then what is the origin of neoliberalism (if it led to what we have today, ie postmodernist thought), if not the bastardization and corruption of liberalism?

[Anonymous No.15735490]

If equality is your highest value then you're inevitably going to be forced to compromise on all your other values when you run up against the natural lack of equality between individuals. Or, more to the point, since blacks are biologically dumber than whites, in order to meet the goal of material equality between the two groups you will need state-enforced wealth transfers and suppression of white dissent against them. Both hate speech laws and reparations will be passed by Congress in under 20 years

[Anonymous No.15735649]

>>15735490
But equality isn't the highest value of liberalism; it's qualified (ie "equality under the law"). I think a better way to help blacks (and everyone in general) would just be to root out cronyism and corruption in the systems that already exist. Lobbying is a system that enables representation based on wealth; it has to go.

[Anonymous No.15735743]

>>15735264
>and they're contrary to Scripture.
You mean the scripture that includes famous stories of Jesus preventing the stoning of an adulterous woman, Jesus advocating the rejection of property, and Jesus letting his enemies kill him (because then he wins by resurrecting)?

The so-called division between Christianity and the Enlightenment is a false one, used by Christians to pretend they're not part of the problem. "We don't have bad values, our good values just got subverted!"...by people who shared your faith and came out of the society you controlled. As though there would be some level of victim morality you can worship every Sunday without making room for progressive victim moralists. Progressivism is just secular Christianity.

Christians have made nominal opposition to progressives over time, but have always cracked and given way. They cannot resist as fundamentally, progressives are just holding Christians to their own professed standards. If you read the Quran, you will come out with an understanding that Islam is about conquest. If you read the New Testament, you will come out with an understanding that Christianity is about martyrdom. He who suffers the most is the most holy. That's the point of the story, and it's the moral foundation of the progressive stack.

Western conservatives are absolutely useless because they are reactionaries first and principled second, and the traditions they instinctively protect encode the values of people who would otherwise be their natural enemies. So they always shatter before the advance, rather than admit that the values they find most appealing are polar opposite to the values they protect.

[Anonymous No.15736074]

>>15735743
Can we escape this trap by reverting to Greco-Roman values?

[Anonymous No.15736138]

>>15735743
>famous stories of Jesus preventing the stoning of an adulterous woman
You mean the story that never happened and was added in by scribes?

[Anonymous No.15736164]

>>15736074
It's all vain talk. You can't choose your values, or society's values.

[Anonymous No.15736166]

>>15735371
>What are some of those irreconcilable principles?
Like I said, the prefrence between negative and positive rights for one. Another is Classical liberalisms friendship with modernism vs liberalism's postmodernism. of course this isnt a one to one but Classical tends to try and provide a groundwork for liberty to be enacted, while neo deconstructs that groundworks. I am not necissarily against this, but I believe a lot of legitamently good postmodernist takes enevitably get watered down into what i call "lazy post modernism". Esentially modernism in denial. It strawmans stereotypes of the blindness of modernity without understanding that itself is a contigent product of that very same modernity, and once it reaches a critical mass, it essentially is modernity. It is enherintly reactive, but it is conservitive and resting on its lorals safe in low constant buzzing of reaction. this vs Classical liberalism that has a firm root in in embrassing the modern and trying to allow it to be an implicit constant.

[Anonymous No.15736174]

>>15736138
lol because the rest totally happened, sure.

[Anonymous No.15736192]

>>15736138
How do you know this? How can you be sure the rest of the stories aren't also fictitious?

[Anonymous No.15736210]

>>15735218
>The freedom of speech, or, more specifically, the ability to freely and actively discuss ideas outside the norm, is increasingly being curbed in the name of "safety" and progressivism.
This is untrue. This is also not liberalism.

[Anonymous No.15736215]

>>15735254
Characterising those who want free speech protected as edgy people who just want to express their racist opinions without personal consequences is precisely the sort of category creep of "racist, sexist, transphobic" that the OP is talking about. Historically, censorship has often used the trojan horse of protecting the vulnerable in order to justify more invasive levels of control and intervention. You should reflect not on the intentions of the executive who holds the power to censor, but the fact that the ability to censor exists. Because one of those things is fashion, and one of them is precedent.

[Anonymous No.15736227]

>>15736192
Because it's the story he doesn't like.

[Anonymous No.15736311]

>>15736074
As long as you're thinking of "going back" to something, you're lost.

[Anonymous No.15736329]

>>15736138
He's a little secret: it was all added in by scribes.

[Anonymous No.15736367]

>>15736210
How is it not a liberal ideal? Also, it absolutely is being curbed; social consequences are just as real (and worse) than legal consequences

[Anonymous No.15736386]

>>15736192
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
There's no disagreement about the story being unauthentic in the field of textual criticism. If you are just now learning of this, then maybe you should stop talking about things you know nothing about and go read a book.

[Anonymous No.15736747]

>>15735743
Christianity may have similar aspects with Progressivism, but the essence of the thing is totally different, which is the presence or not of God. Taking God out of the picture changes the whole way of thinking. Christians love the sinner and hate the sin. Progressists love the sin and love or hate the sinner depending on who they are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Also, the Church never changed substantially. Even the Vatican II changes were superficial ones and didn't change what is essential.

[Anonymous No.15737432]

>when Christian theologians hijack what might have been a halfway decent thread

[Anonymous No.15737498]

>>15735234
Then they wouldn't have been Voltaire and Victor Hugo.

[Anonymous No.15737637]

>"hurr durr western values, but I can't name more than three without looking them up"

[Anonymous No.15737706]

>>15735649
Cool it with the anti Semitism

[Anonymous No.15737715]

>>15735218
>What causes this?
Free speech

[Anonymous No.15739520]

>>15737715
this

[Anonymous No.15739788]

>>15735743
this

[Anonymous No.15739795]

>>15735218
Stop posting this you absolute faggot

[jesus No.15740586]

>>15735218
end of technical progress, end of innovation, overpopulation of job markets makes environment toxic. humanity hits the wall. children born for parents entertainment and self esteem find their life purposeless outside moms basement, and they start to destroy, to harass, to take revenge. in 50 years words mother and father will be a curse, synonym for idiots.

[Anonymous No.15740618]

>>15735218
Maybe the ideas and values fundamental to the creation of contemporary Western societies were dumb all along.
>free speech
The current liberal gerontocracy who, in their youth, constituted the New Left, used "free speech" to get power and then clamped down on it when they did. No society has truly free speech, we ought to think in terms of moral vs. immoral speech, or constructive vs. non-constructive speech.
>"equality before the law"
Can't exist in practice.

They were falsehoods from the start.

[Anonymous No.15740623]

Christian fundamentalism is the only pathway to fix this mess

[Anonymous No.15740644]

>>15735218
Good. People can't handle that freedom, and they never could. It was always just a meme.

[Anonymous No.15740645]

>>15740623
"This mess" in the US is caused by runaway Evangelical Protestant fundamentalism, and I'm not talking about the ones that actually believe in God.

[Anonymous No.15740742]

>>15740645
>"This mess" in the US is caused by runaway Evangelical Protestant fundamentalism
In what way?

[Anonymous No.15740801]

>>15740742
BLM riots, wokeness, etc. are basically an Evangelical Revival. Historically Evangelical Revivals in the US feature hysterically emotional "conversions", mostly by women, are especially concerned concerned with promoting equality, promote the creation of salvific institutions to root out "sin" in society in preparation for the Second Coming, and display a special concern for African-Americans. They also have a generally Puritan character. In many cases these revivals would take place in mass outdoor sermors where a preacher would minister to the crowd about the need to be re-born in Christ through a conversion experience - in pic rel we see the whites seated in prayer being ministered to, in a scene right out of an 1830s tent ministry.

[Anonymous No.15740815]

>>15735218
Can't eradicate what does not exist

[Anonymous No.15740831]

>>15740801
When I say Fundamentalism, I mean that the people who were "woke" in the 1800s, were literally Protestant Fundamentalists. Over time, they became so holy that even God himself was insufficiently pure for them. This is, obviously, a far cry from Contintental radicalism, we have here the sort of person who, were Jesus to come back tomorrow, would ask him to explain passages featuring homophobia or slut shaming in the Bible and threaten to call Heavenly Resources to ask them if they really wanted to be seen as representing such retrograde and hateful values in the current year.

[Anonymous No.15740859]

>>15735218
>Labels denoting full and unmitigated moral evil such as "racist," "sexist," "transphobic," and more are expanding in scope in definition to now include good-will speech and discussion and even silence.
Why lie?

[Anonymous No.15740880]

>>15740801
cool story bro
you forgot to mention how the protests are about systemic racism though

[Anonymous No.15740896]

>>15740801
>BLM riots, wokeness, etc. are basically an Evangelical Revival.
They're not, they're directly a result of marxist brainwashing in the universities. Don't be absurd and dishonest.

[Anonymous No.15740930]

>>15735743
This is actually completely false, the protection of the weak was always considered a virtuous act in all of western civilization. This is why Social Darwinists/Nietzscheans/Fascists will never understand Antiquity, they always project their own values in it, overlooking the continuity with Christianity and modernity, which, although not absolute, it's definitely there.

[Anonymous No.15740955]

>>15740896
brainwashing = all the (((data))) that refutes what my alt right friends told me
Why do you want systemic racism to not be real so badly?

[Anonymous No.15740958]

>>15740880
"Systemic racism" is "social sin" for the 21st century.

>>15740896
None of these people have read a word of Marx lol, not even the professors. Even those who profess themselves "Marxists" believe socialism to be essentially a theory of niceness or a theory of giving things to black people. The entire framework of contemporary American leftism has nothing to do with Marxist thought beyond vaguely egalitarian sentiment - it doesn't acknowledge class struggle or class interests, instead it focuses on Puritanical acknowledgement of one's racism )by virtue of existing) and creation of therapeutic institutions to overcome it, such as we see today in corporate diversity training seminars. Obviously from a Right-wing point of view I think Marxism has its own problems, but I don't think we're dealing with Marxism in any serious way. We've had these characters in America since the 1700s, before we were even a country.

[Anonymous No.15740985]

>>15740958
Systemic racism is not a sin, this is a strawman created to obstruct discussion of the issue of systemic racism. All political factions have certain issues they identify within society, focusing on the alleged self-righteousness of the advocate instead of addressing their argument is a red herring.

[Anonymous No.15741002]

>>15740985
>Systemic racism is not a sin, this is a strawman created to obstruct discussion of the issue of systemic racism.
That was an analogy. "Systemic racism" has an analogous role in this Revival cycle that "social sin" did in earlier cycles.

>focusing on the alleged self-righteousness of the advocate instead of addressing their argument is a red herring.
It's a theological proposition, for someone who doesn't already adhere to contemporary leftist theology, saying "There exists systemic racism" is like saying "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

[Anonymous No.15741031]

>>15740985
There's no reason to believe systemic racism exists to the extent that people that subscribe to it often do. Black culture and single parent homes for two examples must also have a major effect.

Ultimately, it's ridiculous to make policies based on "systemic racism" because they are going to amount to codified de-jure and de-facto racial discrimination, and they universally have unforseen consequences. Many blacks, like those from middle class families and good homes, need no help; they can get a relatively mediocre GPA and get a free ride into a school that takes them over poor Asian, white, or even Hispanics that worked much harder and earned a much better GPA.

The big factor has always been and will always be socioeconomic status. If you're going to try to help blacks I see no reason why you restrict it to those that need help, and bring along with them poor Asians, whites, Hispanics, native Americans. This has the added benefit of not being state-sponsored racism.

[Anonymous No.15741056]

>>15740645
Any recommended reading on the path from Christian morality to modern progressivism? The Genealogy of Morals really turned me on to the idea.

[Anonymous No.15741072]

>>15741002
>That was an analogy. "Systemic racism" has an analogous role in this Revival cycle that "social sin" did in earlier cycles.
It doesn't, it's just an issue with society some political factions identify. You are giving the analogy with sin in order to make it seem that it is all about conferring guilt instead of honestly wanting to improve society. It's a red herring.
>It's a theological proposition, for someone who doesn't already adhere to contemporary leftist theology, saying "There exists systemic racism" is like saying "colorless green ideas sleep furiously".
It is an empirical proposition, and there is data to support it. You are strawmaning pretty hard right now, probably because like 99% of conservatives you are only familiar with leftism from caricatures of its actual positions.

[Anonymous No.15741099]

>>15741072
>It doesn't, it's just an issue with society some political factions identify. You are giving the analogy with sin in order to make it seem that it is all about conferring guilt instead of honestly wanting to improve society.
You sound just like a late 1800s-early 1900s Protestant theologian going on about how alcoholism is destroying virtue and the need for temperance. You're just proving my point with everything you write, lol.

>It is an empirical proposition, and there is data to support it. You are strawmaning pretty hard right now, probably because like 99% of conservatives you are only familiar with leftism from caricatures of its actual positions.
I'm not even arguing anything, only making an analogy with previous eras of American religious history, which has for some reason infuriated you.

[Anonymous No.15741102]

>>15740801
if liberals and BLM riots are an Evangelical Revival, than what are Christian conservatives who believe America's job is to proselytize capitalist democracy to the world and that America is locked in an existential conflict with Muslims, atheist marxists, and godless hordes of South American invaders? Right wing fundies even support Zionism because they believe religious conflict with jews in the middle east will fulfill scriptural prophecy and begin the biblical apocalypse.

[Anonymous No.15741106]

>>15741056
I don't think it's just "Christianity", woke Progressivism is an Anglophone sickness that I attribute to the influence of Dissenter and Nonconfirmist sects.

[Anonymous No.15741118]

>>15741072
>It is an empirical proposition, and there is data to support it.
Not conclusively. Don't you think alternative theories that might explain disparities are unjustly prevented from being voiced, not to mention researched so we could actually figure out to what extent what is what?

[Anonymous No.15741119]

>>15740955
systemic racism is real
but it will absolutely never be solved, because average blacks are a standard deviation or more below average whites in IQ. Whites will succeed because of biology and that cannot be reconciled because in order to even close this gap, you must admit whites are inherently superior. Until that happens, you will have 2 different groups that cannot coexist without one naturally overtaking the other, and any attempts to level the playing field will be met with extreme resentment from whites who believe they are equal. "If we're equal, why are we being handicapped?" whites will ask themselves. This breeds the very racism and resentment that academics are trying to solve. This problem will never be solved.

[Anonymous No.15741130]

>>15741102
>America's job is to proselytize capitalist democracy to the world
The missionary tendency in Anglophone liberal democracy goes back farther than 9/11.

>America is locked in an existential conflict with Muslims
Again who believes that now except people on Israel's payroll?

>atheist marxists, and godless hordes of South American invaders
Somehow evangelicals don't manage to do anything about this...

You could call them Conservative Evangelicals, because they always lose, just like they did in previous centuries.

[Anonymous No.15741159]

"Systemic anti-black racism infects every aspect of American society!"
"Okay. Why don't we just have a separate system for blacks?"
"Noooooooooo not like that!"

[Anonymous No.15741167]

>>15735218
The big problem is you're confusing what existed as an oppositional criticism of the powers that be as a real utopian historical institutional arrangement. You'll find liberals have always been complaining about speech laws and lawyers and whatnot, they've never been happy at any point. You'll find the education system was historically affiliated with some Christian religious denomination and was promoting nationalist myths and all kinds of unliberal ideas.

>>15735264
>Biblical Christian values built the West.
That was totally contingent. If Christianity never spread beyond say Asia or Africa you wouldn't be seeing the same historical developments just transposed there instead of in Europe. Christianity wasn't necessary but sufficient.

>>15735281
>>15736166
There was no real theoretical differentiation between negative and positive rights until very recently. Even framing it like that will make you misunderstand what people are complaining about. You aren't really primarily concerned about any negative rights being violated but not being able to distribute what you think because of the negative rights of corporate bodies.

[Anonymous No.15741177]

>>15741102
>if liberals and BLM riots are an Evangelical Revival
They aren't. Evangelical Christians are having their own revival in the West and they have nothing to do with the progressive cult, that poster is a retard and has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

[Anonymous No.15741193]

>>15741177
Anglo Christians =/= Mestizos or Africans. The latter still believe in God.

[Anonymous No.15741202]

>>15741130
>goes back farther than 9/11
I agree, especially with anti-communism and even pre-WWII with manifest destiny and in the 1900s Wilsonian fp. I just think its been doubled-down after the clear failure of iraq and afghan

>Again who believes that now except people on Israel's payroll?
most of the Republican party and media is on Israel's payroll so I'm not sure what this means.

>Somehow evangelicals don't manage to do anything about this...
why does that matter? Isn't your whole point about calling woke liberals a modern temperance movement that they are just excising their personal guilt and its not about actually solving the social problem in an effective way?

>Conservative Evangelicals, because they always lose
maybe but if secular liberals are evangelicals than actual evangelicals are now basically protestants. and wasps have been "winning" pretty much all the battles since they founded the US 250 years ago. I guess my point is if all the factions are just analogues for religious fundies what's the point in identifying them that way?

[Anonymous No.15741211]

>>15735218
>The freedom of speech, or, more specifically, the ability to freely and actively discuss ideas outside the norm, is increasingly being curbed in the name of "safety" and progressivism. Labels denoting full and unmitigated moral evil such as "racist," "sexist," "transphobic," and more are expanding in scope in definition to now include good-will speech and discussion and even silence.
It is quite ironic that those clamoring for the right to free speech engage in the same progressivism that they attack. The simulation of progressivism cannot be opposed by another simulation of progressivism, instead you have to look for the more progressive than the progressive, that is, pure and empty saturated models of progressivism, obscene enough to reveal the emptiness behind progressivism. You must attack obscenity with it's own weapons.

[Anonymous No.15741222]

>>15741193
I never mentioned race, I mentioned Evangelicals and they're increasing in the West

[Anonymous No.15741241]

>>15741211
You're saying bring it to a comical extreme to show how dumb it is, right? Have any specific example?

[Anonymous No.15741251]

>>15741031
>The big factor has always been and will always be socioeconomic status. If you're going to try to help blacks I see no reason why you restrict it to those that need help, and bring along with them poor Asians, whites, Hispanics, native Americans. This has the added benefit of not being state-sponsored racism.
I agree, but I don't see how that refutes the idea of systemic racism.

[Anonymous No.15741253]

>>15741202
It's just a historical analogy mate. They had (some) Conservative Evangelicals back then who were just as ineffectual as they are now - overall, Revivalist Christianity in the US has provided theological backing for the US to steadily move in a leftward, more egalitarian direction. The only thing I'm really arguing here is that contemporary leftism isn't Marxism.

[Anonymous No.15741257]

>>15741211
Just as absurd is it to attack progressivism with tradition, since the joy of the simulation of progressivism is the complete sacrifice of tradition for utopian models. You need the more traditional than traditional: harsh seductive games with heavy gatekeeping and processes of initiation. This is completely opposed to the reconciliation of progressivism.

[Anonymous No.15741264]

>>15741253
>It's just a historical analogy mate.
a very bad one, please think a bit more before embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.15741271]

>>15741253
>Revivalist Christianity in the US has provided theological backing for the US to steadily move in a leftward, more egalitarian direction.
How?

[Anonymous No.15741278]

>>15741099
>You sound just like a late 1800s-early 1900s Protestant theologian going on about how alcoholism is destroying virtue and the need for temperance. You're just proving my point with everything you write, lol.
By that logic even people who think we need speed limits at the roads to prevent accidents are all wacky theologians who think car accidents will destroy western civilization. Your argument is a total non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.15741287]

>>15741251
There are competing hypotheses that may also account for systemic racism. Those should be researched and looked into. The evidence for systemic racism isn't conclusive in and of itself, unless you can post something that could only possibly be explained by systemic racism and accounts for all reasonable controls

[Anonymous No.15741290]

>>15741118
I don't think sociological data can never be conclusive, but the cumulative evidence seems quite strong.

[Anonymous No.15741292]

Are people being stupid or dishonest when they say progressives are like puritans? They're the complete opposite: hedonists who want no limits on their self-indulgence

[Anonymous No.15741299]

>>15741241
Yes. In fact, this is already happening, to the point where even friends and family members will be found mocking extremist liberals. Memes, in their complete lack of content, can travel extremely rapidly, so this is the form such parodic progressivism is usually paired with, which can actually be very effective. It does not even need any heavy prompting. When everyone is aping the same superficial indications of acceptance, like blackout tuesday where you post... a black picture to support BLM, it becomes a joke on it's own. It blows up in the face of progressives.

[Anonymous No.15741300]

>>15741287
May also account for disparities* and accounts for all confounders*

[Anonymous No.15741304]

>>15741119
What evidence do you have to support the inherent differnces in IQ theory

[Anonymous No.15741308]

>>15741292
this is too simplistic, they're like lots of idelogical adherents, stuck to a contradictory set of principles which hems them in to simultaneously being hedonists and puritanical

To be fair, the same is true of conservatives and libertarians, both caught inside a cage of belief no less robust than the progressives

[Anonymous No.15741309]

>>15741253
>Revivalist Christianity in the US has provided theological backing for the US to steadily move in a leftward, more egalitarian direction.
how so? things like marshall plan, detente, manifest destiny and Wilsonian island-hopping all draw on Protestant-influenced ideas like capitalism as a moral system because its hard honest work, white saviorism/white man's burden, etc. I would not call those plans egalitarian or influenced by evangelical revival.

>contemporary leftism isn't Marxism.
the protests you're talking about are liberals not leftists.

[Anonymous No.15741319]

>>15741290
Do you believe sociological investigations examine the competing hypotheses? It seems to me that they do not. A reason for this, aside from the social mores around investigating such matters, might be that social science disciplines in universities are overwhelmingly democratic and left rather than republican. This may prevent some of these fields from realistically having the type of diversity of opinion that is necessary in such research.

[Anonymous No.15741320]

>>15741304
read The Bell Curve, though it might be hard to get your hands on a copy, since there's vested interest in keeping it suppressed to keep whites from awakening

[Anonymous No.15741321]

>>15741299
>Yes. In fact, this is already happening, to the point where even friends and family members will be found mocking extremist liberals.
No the opposite is happening: people used to openly mock far-left hippies and make politically incorrect jokes in public. Now they do it in private under hushed voices in case the mob hears them.

[Anonymous No.15741333]

>>15741309
They're not liberals in the traditional definition of the word

[Anonymous No.15741364]

>>15741319
Everyone is free to do research on whatever topic they want, controversial research is published all the time. Most academics are probably left leaning but they don't suppress conservative research. There is usually a lot of back and forth every time such a study is published.

[Anonymous No.15741366]

>>15741308
They're all far-left hedonists, they just express it in different ways through their identity politics

[Anonymous No.15741372]

>>15741319
>my race theory isn't a conspiracy, its supported conclusively by evidence
>the evidence can never really be conclusive though, because a leftist conspiracy prevents them from making accurate comparisons
conservatives, everyone. No matter how logical they claim to be, buried somewhere in the "logic"a conspiracy is the glue holding the pieces together.

[Anonymous No.15741377]

>>15741364
>Most academics are probably left leaning but they don't suppress conservative research.
They do if it's considered "extreme". And even if it isn't they'll just kill it with negative reviews

[Anonymous No.15741383]

>>15741372
racialism has nothing to do with conservatism, but well down exposing your biases

[Anonymous No.15741389]

>>15741321
People do everything in private, insofar as that is where the network can be accessed. This isn't the 60's where public demonstration is the most effective method of turning the others over to your cause. The form is only aped nowadays because of what it indicates. We have already gone beyond this, into faster forms. Cowardice in public is a result of this turn, but only because it is slower. No one wants to make a scene, but on the network any scene can be entered and exited instantly, and therefore escape is always possible.

[Anonymous No.15741405]

>>15740815
But this is exactly where it's energy comes from!

[Anonymous No.15741409]

>>15741364
It's more than probably left-leaning. They're demonstrably overwhelmingly left-leaning in the social sciences, it's only going to become moreso in the foreseeable future, and this has problematic implications for the veracity of these studies. There's a lack of diversity of opinion. You will not make as good a case against something you agree with as you would something you disagree with.

Compounding that is the social justice climate today. Even academics, especially conservative ones, are able to be outed as racists. See Yale and that Greenpine College or whatever. My experience in a good university is obviously anecdotal but virtually every single social science class I took at UCI was grounded in, if not CRT and third-wave postmodern feminism, then the precursors for it. We spoke about systemic ("institutional") racism as a foregone conclusion and the definitive reason why there exists disparities in one course.

We see very directly reasons that conservative academics may be de-facto silenced or otherwise disinclined to share dissenting opinions.

[Anonymous No.15741414]

>>15741383
yes I forgot about all those liberal BLM protesters quoting the Bell Curve and race iq statistics. How could I be so dumb? clearly I am no match for an intellectual champion like you

[Anonymous No.15741422]

>>15741320
These are just the opinions of one author, there are other scientists and sociologists who disagree with him. And in any case there is data in the opposite direction that supports the systemic racism hypothesis.
>though it might be hard to get your hands on a copy, since there's vested interest in keeping it suppressed to keep whites from awakening
it took a 5 seconds google search https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299

[Anonymous No.15741424]

>>15741372
What? You understand that a scientific process involves these things, correct? How are you supposed to call your hypothesis the correct and major one if you don't explore hypotheses that might also account for the same outcomes?

[Anonymous No.15741440]

>>15741377
>They do if it's considered "extreme".
Do you have any evidence for that?
>And even if it isn't they'll just kill it with negative reviews
Who cares conservative think tanks will cite it anyway

[Anonymous No.15741446]

>>15741422
The vast majority of sociological studies show disparities in iq after accounting for confounding variables. This typically isnt the goal of the study and they don't imply that policy might be built on it, so they don't receive the same audience or hate, but afaik the first study that claimed to find all external factors and show that the iq difference is neglible between skin colors was published in 2015.

[Anonymous No.15741453]

>>15741414
Conservatism in the Anglo-saxon world is Christianity and Capitalism, despite what leftists tell you racialism isn't associated with it and can be found in any political ideology. It was very popular with the left pre-WW2, many socialists and marxists were pro-eugenics of "lesser" races.

[Anonymous No.15741463]

>>15735218
Intersectionalism is a natural and logical progression on from liberalism. The feminist and LGB activist principles can be directly inferred from the principles of liberalism and utilitarianism. With class and race activism, it is not so clear, but their critique also comes from a liberal position. After all, if we are all equal, and deserve to be treated equally, why are there disparities? Either we are not equal or there is 'institutional oppression' keeping some of us from attaining their (under liberalism) well-deserved equality.

[Anonymous No.15741478]

>>15741440
Well if student and professorial interactions with evergreen, Washington state, uc Berkeley, Yale, and Stanford are any indicators (in evergreen professors called other professors racist for literally no reason and encouraged them to resign in public while privately supporting them)

[Anonymous No.15741484]

>>15741463
>Intersectionalism is a natural and logical progression on from liberalism. The feminist and LGB activist principles can be directly inferred from the principles of liberalism and utilitarianism
And how is that? How exactly does the natural progression or direct inference go?

[Anonymous No.15741488]

>>15741409
>We see very directly reasons that conservative academics may be de-facto silenced or otherwise disinclined to share dissenting opinions.
But conservative academics do exist, they publish papers all the time. Yes they are not the majority but who cares, there will always be majority and minority views.

[Anonymous No.15741504]

>>15741463
This is a strawman of what is meant by equality in liberalism. Equality in liberalism means that all men have the same rights. Ergo, discrimination that violates such rights ie sexism, racism etc are unjustifiable. Nothing inside our conception of equality precludes us from believing some people are faster than others, smarter, prettier...etc etc.

[Anonymous No.15741505]

>>15741484
Because liberalism is an ideology based on enforcing equality

[Anonymous No.15741528]

>>15741424
>How are you supposed to call your hypothesis the correct and major one if you don't explore hypotheses that might also account for the same outcomes?
And have studies explored all hypotheses? how can you prove that the reason science has not done this is a liberal democrat conspiracy? You have basically taken the (illogical) conspiracy element of racism from "black people bad" to "me no trust academic". You have not removed the illogical conspiracy element from racism.

>>15741453
How does pre-WWII eugenics mean modern "race realists" (racists) are not conservative? I don't follow

[Anonymous No.15741537]

>>15741528
>How does pre-WWII eugenics mean modern "race realists" (racists) are not conservative?
How are they conservative? Most conservatives I know believe all men are equal under God

[Anonymous No.15741541]

>>15741488
Yeah you're right. I'm just saying that systemic racism is being taken as the Gospel truth and fundamental fact when in reality it's only a majority viewpoint (at least among those that we see protesting/advocating change), and it may be a very relatively unexamined one at that.

[Anonymous No.15741549]

>>15741504
>Equality in liberalism means that all men have the same rights.
the problem here is that liberals change these "rights" to whatever suits their agenda at the time

[Anonymous No.15741556]

>>15741446
>The vast majority of sociological studies show disparities in iq after accounting for confounding variables.
Aren't those usually explained away with environment + socioeconomics

[Anonymous No.15741573]

>>15741549
To have the right to do x means that it would be immoral for another alone or in a group to stop you from ding x by physical force or the threat thereof. Rights are ethical propositions of course we liberals have to debate what is ethical in any given situation at all times because new situations keep cropping up. I don't understand why debating the ethics of new situations/institutions in society is something bad.

[Anonymous No.15741575]

>>15741478
But now you are moving the goalposts, what I am asking is if you have evidence of suppressed controversial research. Some professors nmy have been accused falsely of X, but that's irrelevant to the point.

[Anonymous No.15741588]

>>15741528
Illogical conspiracy has nothing to do with it. Those statistics are used to show that there may be a very large unanimity of opinion and very small diversity of opinion in the field that espouses the idea of systemic racism. Because diversity of opinion, especially in the social sciences, is fundamental towards the proper and full-bodied examination of what a discipline researches, it is not unreasonable to believe that this idea may be relatively unexamined (when compared to, for example, the pros and cons of keynesian VS neoliberal VS Austrian school economic theory) within the discipline. Further evidence of this is the lack of studies exploring competing hypotheses.

I'm not saying it's some sort of overt malign conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.15741593]

>>15741537
believing that black are genetically inferior to whites and have a negative effect on society is a conservative position. It has nothing to do with conservatives you know personally.

this fake concern troll argument is just sad. Why do nazis try so hard to hide what they believe? wheres your "pride" in your race?

[Anonymous No.15741600]

>>15741549
And they are always EASILY dismantled. Just remember anon, there is no such thing as a positive right. Because in order to have a right to anything that is produced by other humans necessitates slavery no matter how you dress it. Having a right to healthcare products necessitates someone being under or unpaid for their work in producing that healthcare is slavery. Having a right to food necessitates someone else in the supply chain to produce that food for less than market value or being unpaid is slavery. Remember this any time some rainbow haired freak demanding free hormones for their transition. If they argue that they're okay with these things they're okay with slavery.

[Anonymous No.15741630]

>>15741573
>To have the right to do x means that it would be immoral for another alone or in a group to stop you from ding x by physical force or the threat thereof.
And what if a group wants the right to do things that are considered immoral by the majority of the population? Like homosexuals, pedophiles, transexuals, bestiality etc. Where do you draw the line? The problem with liberals is that they have no concrete moral values. They're relativists who will cave in to any group who applies enough pressure.

[Anonymous No.15741633]

>>15741600
False. You can easily provide social services without resorting to slavery. You just use taxes to pay people who voluntarily chose to work in government jobs to provide those social services. That's how police, education, healthcare etc can be provided without resorting to slavery.

[Anonymous No.15741647]

>>15741575
I don't think the research is physically suppressed as much as it is socially suppressed. I believe the lack of studies thereof is telling and indicitive of that. For example:

I am not a sociologist, and maybe you aren't either. But let's try to employ a scientific process to this: what are some reasons black Americans maybe be disproportionately represented where they are? There's a lot more than "systemic racism" that comes to my mind. Where are the wealth of studies of the same magnitude exploring each and every one of those reasons?

[Anonymous No.15741648]

>>15741600
this. i see this as a definitive difference between classical and neo liberalism. classical almost always in the camp of negative right, rights to not be infringed, while the neo variety is largely in favor of positive rights.

[Anonymous No.15741655]

50+ years of KBG psyop.

[Anonymous No.15741656]

>>15741593
>believing that black are genetically inferior to whites and have a negative effect on society is a conservative position.
What's conservative about it?
>Why do nazis try so hard to hide what they believe? wheres your "pride" in your race?
Nazis were socialists with an inclination towards atheism, they weren't conservatives at all

[Anonymous No.15741658]

>>15741630
The system by which laws are made can pass any kind of laws. A parliament can pass pro pedophilia laws, as well as a monarch or an oligarchy. It's a question of choosing the legislative process that is the most likely to do the least amount of harm ie democracy but that risk is always there no matter the system you use to make laws.

[Anonymous No.15741663]

>>15741588
diversity or non-diversity of private political views does not influence scientific studies more than any other factor. You are basically saying some of the most qualified, peer-reviewed scientists in the world have a huge blind spot and no one noticed. Diversity of scientific opinion is not the same as political diversity. There are christian astrophysicists, there are atheists who study neurology and angelic vision during near-death experiences.

You are putting forth a theory with a priori conclusion that genetic differences exist but are being suppressed. There is no evidence that qualified PhDs at UCLA or Oxford are bad scientists. There is no evidence for your belief that race science being suppressed at the university, so it is a conspiracy, whether you think the people involved are malicious or accidentally biased does not matter. You don't have enough evidence to support either version

[Anonymous No.15741683]

>>15741633
You completely missed the point. These things can exist without there being a right to them, which is what my entire argument was. The government pays for these services BUT THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE THEM. You have no assurance the police will come in time to protect. You have no guarantee to a quality education. You have no guarantee a doctor will treat you in time. These things exist but are not enumerated as rights explicitly because their supply is determined by the market, and the government cannot control the supply of these things without resorting to state enforced slavery. And in order to guarantee these things we return to fascism.

[Anonymous No.15741685]

>>15741556
The problem is that they're not concerned with how iq relates to race: these are unrelated sociological studies that just use IQ as another metric. SES alone does not completely explain away the disparity always for example, and environment is very complicated. But these studies are not attempting to find all the factors that contribute to IQ. Some, like the 2015 one I mentioned, are, and they manage to find a set of factors that can for the most part explain away the iq disparity.

[Anonymous No.15741698]

>>15741656
>What's conservative about it?
that it implies a strict racial hierarchy, inequality of social outcomes as "natural", return or preservation of traditional values. Do you literally not know what a conservative is? You say you know many conservatives, but do you personally believe blacks are genetically inferior or distinct from whites? I have a feeling the answer is yes and you're just stalling for time lol

[Anonymous No.15741708]

>>15741698
>that it implies a strict racial hierarchy
Not a conservative position
>but do you personally believe blacks are genetically inferior or distinct from whites?
No, not really

[Anonymous No.15741714]

>>15740930
just simply incorrect

[Anonymous No.15741734]

>>15741685
The government can use taxes to provide fairly reliable and effective government services. They can provide services directly without doing it through the market.The government sector exists.

[Anonymous No.15741745]

>>15741647
so you believe systemic racism is not real? But you also believe that in academic institutions social and cultural pressures influence the quality and content of daily work without ever actually physically intervening or making explicit denials of a person's goals?

Are you by chance, mentally retarded or the victim of sudden and persistent traumatic brain injury (TBI)? Have you gotten an MRI in the last 12-18 months? I believe your brain is severely damaged in some way that prevents critical thinking and reduces you mentally to the state of one of the lesser apes or possibly a very smart dog

[Anonymous No.15741746]

>>15741714
What's incorrect about it?

[Anonymous No.15741752]

>>15741708
>Not a conservative position
yes it is. you also ignored the other points.
>No, not really
then why don't you think racism is conservative? most neutral people do

[Anonymous No.15741753]

>>15741663
I said absolutely nothing about genetic differences and I don't believe there are genetic differences. Stop attributing viewpoints to me and thinking I'm arguing in bad faith.

But you're being naive if you don't think that political viewpoint has a bearing on social research: political viewpoints have very different views about society. Do you honestly believe that if the roles were flipped, that social sciences were overwhelmingly republican instead of democrat, that ideas like systemic racism would be nearly as prevalent as they are today? That seems extremely naive to me, as does the idea that "race science" is not suppressed (though that is only one, and probably the least helpful opposing viewpoint). If you believe that systemic racism exists then why not give the same leeway in the arcane details of that concept to the much more concrete matter of how researching it may be socially unacceptable?

[Anonymous No.15741769]

>>15736192
>>15736174
the earlier known manuscripts are the ones that generally do not include that passage within them, clearly suggesting it to have been added at a later date. it is considered canonical by the cucklics though as it is present in the vulgate. likely a part of why cucklics are more faggoty and leftoidist.

[Anonymous No.15741777]

>>15741683
>These things can exist without there being a right to them
publicly funded police, fire and safety and other things would not exist without a public guarantee. If the market set the price police probably wouldn't even exist in most major cities because residents couldn't afford to buy private security. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15741780]

>>15735649
there is no society where the elite do not have disproportionate influence and there never will be.

[Anonymous No.15741787]

>>15741752
>then why don't you think racism is conservative?
Because it isn't, it's mostly linked to Darwinism and evolution which conservatives reject

[Anonymous No.15741792]

>>15741647
>There's a lot more than "systemic racism" that comes to my mind. Where are the wealth of studies of the same magnitude exploring each and every one of those reasons?
There seems to be quite a lot actually. Here is a list that I've seen thrown around for example, although I don't know how comprehensive it is
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ido70LgXsEhxcnyXE7RVS0wYJZc6aeVTpujCUPQgTrE/preview?pru=AAABcyqdL9E*o-1W2W0CvgCprRY3avzZwg

[Anonymous No.15741802]

>>15741106
catholics are and have long been more progressive in the modern anglosphere than the protestants. you can easily find religious breakdowns of voter data.

[Anonymous No.15741805]

>>15741777
>Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
The supreme court has already refuted your statement. How can you not understand this difference? Its very simple. The police may act in good faith and try their best to save you. But they're under no obligation to. You can't sue the fire department if your house burns down for failing to save it. You cannot sue the police for failing to respond even. Because these things aren't rights as we define rights. A right would necessitate a guarantee of something. There is no guarantee, and the supreme court has stated this.

[Anonymous No.15741809]

>>15735218
>The Eradication of Liberal Values in the West
good.
>Ideas and values that were fundamental to the creation of contemporary Western societies are under attack today.
good.

[Anonymous No.15741816]

>>15741714
poetic license

[Anonymous No.15741832]

>>15741753
>Stop attributing viewpoints to me and thinking I'm arguing in bad faith.
than what kind of scientific studies do you think are being inhibited?
>That seems extremely naive to me, as does the idea that "race science" is not suppressed
so you do believe in genetic differences between races?
>social sciences
not really the same as the genetics experts who test for lower IQ genes or whatever nazis think it is.
>If you believe that systemic racism exists then why not give the same leeway in the arcane details of that concept to the much more concrete matter of how researching it may be socially unacceptable?
I never said it did or did not exist, but no alternative theories on systemic racism and genetic racial differences should not be given the same leeway. Systemic racism is a product of social sciences, philosophy, psychology, etc. Those fields are a lot more influenced by the person's politics than genetic testing is. I believe there is no significant difference in racial IQs a lot more than I believe in the current social theory of systemic racism.

it is difficult for me to understand what you say is being suppressed since you flip flop. Are you saying genetic research is suppressed, or alternative explanations for structural problems in America? Those things aren't usually being studied by the same type of scientist.

[Anonymous No.15741845]

>>15741787
>linked to Darwinism and evolution
Christian fundies are just racist for cultural reasons they aren't race realists. You're comparing different groups of conservatives. Its like saying Modi can't be a conservative because Indians in America usually vote democrat lol

[Anonymous No.15741856]

>>15741845
A lot of Christian evangelicals are literally black

[Anonymous No.15741867]

>>15741805
>A right would necessitate a guarantee of something.
in the broad sense. However in a constitutional system rights have limits based on law and prior court rulings. For instance free speech is guaranteed but that does not include inciting violence, fire in a crowded theater, etc. you would have to be borderline autistic or a 14 year old ancap to not know this.

[Anonymous No.15741899]

>>15741745
I never said I don't believe systemic racism is real. You fucking people, why do you keep attributing these ideas and opinions to me?

I do believe that it probably does not exist to the same extent that many (ie blm protestors) believe it does. I believe that the answer is probably somewhere in the middle of a ton of factors including systemic racism, black culture, single-parent homes, the use of welfare systems, etc.

Specifically, I believe that many more studies (or just reform) should be done on the welfare system, and that black culture, regardless of the fact that it is a result of their oppression, needs to be looked at very deeply and somehow changed. My work takes me to black schools in Baltimore occasionally, and the idea that systemic racism is the primary cause of the plight of those poor blacks to me is pretty dumb. Their attitude toward authority, thoughts on education, attitude towards each other, and in general outlook on life is pretty thoroughly and totally fucked before they even step into a school often times. I get calls to elementary schools. That culture combined with the ineffectiveness of US public education in general is the reason why they're so fucked, though by the time they're in high school a shocking proportion of them don't bother going to school anymore. The ineffectiveness of the US public education system might be seen as a result of systemic racism but it really is just absolute shit nationwide, and so it should be fixed nationwide and not as a racism thing. But I'm not a sociologist, I can just say I wish people did these studies.

>>15741792
This is a perfect example. All racial stuff is "institutional racism" only.

[Anonymous No.15741905]

>>15741899
>I never said I don't believe systemic racism is real.
why not? are you gay?

[Anonymous No.15741919]

>>15741832
>than what kind of scientific studies do you think are being inhibited?
read >>15741899
>so you do believe in genetic differences between races?
nope
>not really the same as the genetics experts who test for lower IQ genes or whatever nazis think it is.
agreed
>but no alternative theories on systemic racism and genetic racial differences should not be given the same leeway.
agreed
>Systemic racism is a product of social sciences, philosophy, psychology, etc. Those fields are a lot more influenced by the person's politics than genetic testing is.
that's exactly what i was saying
Why are you still trying to paint me as a eugenicist

[Anonymous No.15741953]

>>15741867
I'm fully aware of these limits. I've actually read up on the topics I'm talking about, and even have JS Mill on my bookshelf. Even in on liberty he talks about the necessities of limiting rights to only extend as far as they don't hurt others. You on the other hand assume are just another pseud discussing topics he's barely heard about. You refuse to even understand the fundamental difference between positive and negative rights. There is a curtailment of speech to incite a mob because it would cause direct harm. Your rights only extend as far as they don't cause direct harm to another person. However speech is still a negative right and you are free to state your opinion as you please. Anyone claiming a right to something that involves the production of a product or service to begin with cannot be a right. To have a right to someone else's guaranteed labor is to cause violence to that person by forcing them into slavery. If you cannot see the distinction between saying whats on your mind or coercing someone to produce something for you against their will then I am done talking to you.

[Anonymous No.15741990]

>>15741905
pretty smart actually heh

[Anonymous No.15742103]

>>15741899
>>15741919
I just don't know what you think is being suppressed if you don't believe in genetic differences and you don't doubt the possibility of systemic racism.
>more studies (or just reform) should be done on the welfare system, and that black culture
I don't know how you would do a study of that so maybe its not suppression but just a lack of clear goals: You could study welfare as a cultural phenomenon, but that is not an economic reform. You could study welfare's economic problems, but all evidence already suggests that poverty is the #1 indicator of crime not "lazy welfare queens". You could study black culture's resistance to authority, but its pretty clear that can be argued as stemming from racism. You could study the unstable home life of black kids, but its pretty clear drug use, violence, absentee parents, molestation and abuse all come from external factors like poverty and lack of social services. The culture reinforces these things but the social problems of poverty obviously predate the modern cultural response.

How could an external force like social science could "reform" someones culture inside their own home, while simultaneously reducing funding for social services and welfare? Personally I think the problem is economic inequality not just racism, but a lot of the people saying systemic racism are upper class and don't want a comprehensive analysis of economic inequality because it does not benefit them at all. Also the protestant guilt complex as mentioned earlier

[Anonymous No.15742157]

>>15741953
>Your rights only extend as far as they don't cause direct harm to another person.
that may be your personal desire but a constitutional government is allowed to limit rights in myriad other ways. For instance: not taking photos on military bases for nat'l security reasons, confiscating land for public works, etc.

>To have a right to someone else's guaranteed labor is to cause violence to that person by forcing them into slavery.
you have not shown or proven this. Working for wages like a cop or firemen does is not slavery because they get paid, and signing up for those jobs is voluntary. Never once have I heard of people being forced against their will to be cops or firefighters or nurses working for free in an otherwise democratic country.

[Anonymous No.15742176]

>>15735218
California voted to make segregation legal and equality before the law illegal so that they could give POC more legal benefits, they've gone mad.

[Anonymous No.15742261]

>>15741899
>This is a perfect example. All racial stuff is "institutional racism" only.
that's what systemic racism means anon

[Anonymous No.15742293]

>>15742103
>but a lot of the people saying systemic racism are upper class and don't want a comprehensive analysis of economic inequality because it does not benefit them at all. Also the protestant guilt complex as mentioned earlier
Also the fact that the vast majority of the people studying these issues (those conducting "meta studies" are the most guilty) are generally completely unfamiliar and unknowledgeable about the culture. That is the problem with the vast majority of these studies: while people conclude that the results of the studies indicate "systemic racism," it could just as easily indicate a cultural difference. That's what I'm saying.

People are absolutely and totally unaware of these differences, and academics are probably no different. They'd watch something like Colors or The Wire or some other portrayal of black culture and think "it's dramatized" or "oh, it's not that bad" or, even worse "what a racist depiction." I can say in the Wire's case: it really is that bad. Blacks really are more violent. They don't value education. They are openly hostile with authority figures, including teachers. They glorify crime and violence. They antagonize the traditional idea of succeeding. Even the ones that don't commit crime (and there are a bunch of them that I'm not giving credit to) typically dress and look the same as those that do. It's not genetic, it's cultural.

So yeah, I agree with you that economic inequality is the biggest reason. But down there at the bottom, there's a positive feedback loop that keeps them there and actively prevents them from upward mobility. It's present for whites and Hispanics too I'm sure, though to a lesser extent (Hispanics especially still value family, and that helps them tremendously when compared to blacks)

[Anonymous No.15742331]

>>15742261
Yeah. Whoever compiled this is using it in the advancement of the idea that virtually the entire difference is due to systemic racism, especially when the same data could support the conclusion of culture variation. For example:
>Studies seem to indicate about 61-80% of black overrepresentation in prisons can be explained by higher black crime rates, with the unexplained portion largely attributable to racial bias.
If this accounts for repeat offenders, the other 20-39% could be from cultural variation in the justice process, ie failure to work with prosecutors, failure to admit guilt, failure to work with your own defense lawyer, failure to show remorse, hostility toward the process
>Remember - the factors which lead to disproportionate criminality amongst black Americans are also in large part a product of racial bias. Underfunded public programs, redlining, generational poverty, bad schooling, and myriad other factors which influence criminality can also be traced to racial bias.
What a fucking joke. Only insofar as most blacks are unfortunately poor, and SES is the single best indicator we know of criminality. In other words, [citation required].

I'm not going to continue, but go ahead and read down that list and ask yourself if culture could realistically be a factor in every single one of those bullet points.

[Anonymous No.15742419]

>>15742293
>They'd watch something like Colors or The Wire
I understand your frustration but academics are not basing their studies on tv shows lol

>It's not genetic, it's cultural.
ok and how do you think this should be solved? They already reject white authority figures. They already reject black people who have "made it" and present as middle/upper class wearing suits, live in gentrified area, etc. The only successful black people they respect are ones who look/talk/dress like them anyway. How should a mostly white, mostly gentrified class of academics and media access this culture and change it from the outside?

>actively prevents them from upward mobility.
it may seem this way but the primary factor is still economic, and racism related to economics like redlining, predatory lending, etc. They're just trying to make sense of economic factors they cant understand.

How many people not just in the ghetto but in all of America see the police as protectors of capitalist investment and the military-industrial complex, and not just "racist guy who's allowed to shoot minorities and get away with it"? Americans aren't trained to see social problems through a class lens

[Anonymous No.15742614]

>>15742419
>I understand your frustration but academics are not basing their studies on tv shows lol
as much as they'd benefit from it (or actual groundwork in those areas), yeah you're right.

>ok and how do you think this should be solved?
I have no idea. I'm not trained in that. But it needs to be explored in order to ensure we don't overestimate the effect of "systemic racism" and make awful overcompensating policy because of that that ends up having ridiculous side effects. Just on principle alone I reject any attempt to cure disparity based on racial discrimination.

Ultimately the answer is probably some sort of economic program. For all poor. But the way things are going now, the idea of systemic racism tends to lead to questions about systemic reform. Which would be fucking awful because it'll probably be focused on race rather than class. But like I said, I'm not educated on policy.

[Anonymous No.15742629]

>>15736747
Your post is a collection of tired old useless platitudes that were already stale 100 years ago. They are only "convincing" to people that already believe the same bland platitudes.

[Anonymous No.15742730]

>>15740859
Make a facebook account and declare publicly using your real full name to as many people as possible (especially people you work with and HR) that american blacks are not systemically discriminated against and do not deserve special treatment. Cite FBI crime statistics as well as the National Crime Victimization Survey. Declare that it's possible that disproportionate treatmemt by the police is a result of disproportionate behavior on the part of american blacks.

Since we have free speech nothing bad will happen to you right?

[Anonymous No.15742744]

>>15741304
Do you believe in evolution?

[Anonymous No.15742773]

>>15741251
What is the point of systemic racism? Why is it sustained?

[Anonymous No.15742781]

>>15742773
The "system" they are referring to, is the natural world.

[Anonymous No.15742811]

>>15741422
But you still won't read it, will you?

[Anonymous No.15742847]

>>15741753
>I don't believe there are genetic differences
What causes differences in skin color between two people?

[Anonymous No.15742852]

>>15742781
>The "system" they are referring to, is the apparatus of institutional power.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.15742866]

>>15742852
What makes you believe that?

[Anonymous No.15742873]

White American anxieties about race are outrageous. In 200 years people will recognize it for the undiagnosed neurosis it is.

[Anonymous No.15742883]

>>15741752
>neutral people
No such thing. You are not immune to propaganda.

[Anonymous No.15743016]

can we save liberal values? are they worth saving? what would be better?

[Anonymous No.15743213]

>>15735234
>"Voltaire and Victor Hugo would have been supporters of BLM"
"Their round eyes, their flattened nose, their lips which are always large, their differently shaped ears, the wool of their head, that very measure of their intelligence, place prodigious differences between them and the other species of men."

"And they are not men, except in their stature, with the faculty of speech and thought at a degree far distant to ours. Such are the ones that I have seen and examined."

I don't know about Victor Hugo so i'll just leave that.

[Anonymous No.15743563]

>>15742629
There are words, but you didn't say anything.

[Anonymous No.15743604]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/265698069