Lee Corbin wrote,
> Oh great. Here we have an issue that taxes the emotional
> control and objectivity even of extropians and... sure
> enough, someone wants to ban it. Do you not wonder then,
> that people want to ban cloning and everything else that
> makes them feel uncomfortable?
We don't have list rules against uncomfortable subjects. We do have list
rules against ad hominem. Stating that blacks cannot achieve as well as
whites is ad hominem. It attacks the person as invalid rather than
discussing any person's actions, topics, theories, actions, statements, etc.
It was persuasive rather than objective.
On any topic, this kind of attack or argument methodology is against the
list rules. If someone had attacked a particular list member by claiming
their race was inferior instead of attacking their specific actions,
statements or claims, this would violate the list rules.
> Hey, thanks Harvey! But I'm sure that if you reflect a while,
> you'll come to believe that it really would be good to examine
> the evidence, especially if we can do so in an objective fashion.
> The claim is not pathetic.
I did examine the evidence. I posted a specific analysis of the post
against the definition of racism. I listed the specific examples where the
author implied that all whites were one way while all blacks were another
way. I listed the specific examples where the author stated that whites
often go above a certain level of achievement whereas no blacks could ever
attain this same level. My analysis was objective, precise and complete. I
did not resort to ad hominem or emotion persuasiveness in my analysis. The
claim that the article was rational or scientific is pathetic.
> Now I notice, for the first time that I can recall, statements
> such as these being made without any quoting of the original
> sources. This is very peculiar. I think the explanation is
> that the original source (Fred Reed's essay) is heavy on
> innuendo and implication, and doesn't so easily yield up
> quotable examples. But this just makes discussing it only
> more difficult, not impossible. If we are to find the truth,
> then such effort must be undertaken.
*Sigh* I can't believe that my examples were not clear enough or that you
can't find the relevant passages for yourself. However, for the sake of
completeness of the record, let me clearly quote exact passages from the
article:
> owe me for three bicycles. Maybe it's a small thing, but I'm tired of
losing bicycles.
> "feemelkeebome" is stretching it. The errors were of this sort.[...]
> Without thinking, I asked, "What color is your teacher?"
> (If I had thought carefully, I would have asked, "What color is your
teacher?")
> I can yell at an ignorant white teacher, but not at a black one.
> To expect blacks to meet standards is racist.
> People in, say, Switzerland can walk their streets after dark. We can't.
Why?
> - they never caught the killers, but - what you reckon, Johnny? Do you
figure it was white Presbyterian women from the old-ladies' home?
> positron-emission scanners, high-bypass turbofans, radar with Doppler
beam-sharpening. Yet basically a culture is a body of knowledge, like
Microsoft Word. (All right, throw in values. But I don't want to make this
too difficult.) White guys invented these things at considerable cost.
> Air-conditioning. Roads. Writing. The wheel. Complicated stuff like that.
Medicine. Tractors. Shoes. Houses.
> I'd love to see blacks study, earn degrees on their merits, prosper.
These statements make these racist assumptions (in order of the above
quotes):
- unseen bicycle thieves are assumed to be black
- poor teachers are assumed to probably be black
- countries without crime problems are assumed to be so because of a lack of
blacks
- unsolved murders are assumed to be committed by blacks
- all technology inventions are assumed to be made by whites and not blacks
- all western civilization are assumed to be due to whites and not blacks
- all value in Microsoft Word is assumed to be due to Microsoft's white
employees and none of their black employees
- basic tools such as roads, writing, the wheel, shoes, houses are assumed
to have been invented by whites but not blacks
- the wheel is assumed to have been invented by a white and not a black
- blacks are assumed to be incapable of study
- degrees earned by blacks are assumed to be given without merit
- blacks are assumed to be unable to prosper
> > Well I grant you the post didn't contain anything on the
> > order of: "All niggers are shiftless, lazy, criminals who
> > have made no worthwhile contribution to society"
But it did say this! A point-by-point analysis of your statement above
shows that the article did exactly claim everything you said. It called
them blacks for "niggers". It called them robbers and murderers for
"shiftless". It blamed them for welfare for "lazy". It blamed crime and
large police departments on them for "criminals". It claimed that all
civilization and technology was invented by whites without any contributions
from blacks for "no worthwhile contribution to society". The article says
exactly what you claim would be racist.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT