Actually, yeah, you've missed a lot if that's your view of me and my thoughts. Also, did your lack of comprehension kick in again and have you thinking I called you ignorant with one of my statements? Otherwise, the personal attack stating that I have a "belief in black inferiority and... [a] white savior complex" just doesn't make sense. Especially since that view would be, at best, a complete misunderstanding of my views and, at worst, a complete misrepresentation of my views.
Rand Paul Confronts the GOP's Race Problem
- Thread starter theworldismine13
- Start date
Actually, yeah, you've missed a lot if that's your view of me and my thoughts. Also, did your lack of comprehension kick in again and have you thinking I called you ignorant with one of my statements? Otherwise, the personal attack stating that I have a "belief in black inferiority and... [a] white savior complex" just doesn't make sense. Especially since that view would be, at best, a complete misunderstanding of my views and, at worst, a complete misrepresentation of my views.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
oh im sure you wouldn't describe your views the way i did but that is the way i interpret them
IMO i think a lot of white and black people have unconsciously accepted black inferiority and its just assumed that a high concentration of blacks is a bad thing and that they can only be saved by heroic government action
i think libertarians have framed the issue in a better way, the issue is individual and economic freedom, the issue isnt racism and segregation
You clearly do not understand that systems have already been set-up and established. Choosing to be separate from that, no matter race (this could easily be spoken of in many other ways), would only serve to hurt the community separating itself at this point. No one is accepting "black inferiority." The point is change can only come from within. That means getting people politically active and concerned about helping areas that are impoverished around the nation. Of course, in doing so some densely populated black areas will profit in more than just an economic way. It seems as if you'd just simply like to be free of government entirely, and I'm sorry, but that's not the way America works (it seems you're not actually aware of how involved governments (state and federal) are in people's lives... In a good way - likely your own), nor do I wish it would adopt this view. What you are speaking of is a non-existent Libertarian wet dream. It's idealistic, completely irrational, and would never work in practice.
The video from the speech
Last edited by a moderator:
Basically.
Thanks for the post. I'm definitely gonna check it out. I'm interested in hearing how he approaches this speech and looking forward to laughing at him as he tries to sell people some completely spun bullshyt.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
I don't know what this is suppose to mean, I wasn't talking about separating, the point is that level of segregation should not be used as a metric for progress
What's happened is this country is that white people have used the government to protect their rights and at the same time also used the government to violate the rights of African Americans and native Americans
So the point im making is that the government should focus on protecting the economic and individual rights of minorities
The issue of segregation is neither here nor there, as long as people's rights are protected that is all that matters, the government does not have the right to tell anybody where they can and cannot live and neither do individual's
Under what im saying anybody should be able to live, work, go to school and trade and do business wherever they want, that is what it means to have your rights protected
I'm not a libertarian but I do agree wih the way they frame issues, and the main issue is individual and economic rights, and I also think the economic system in this country is based on property ownership and education, so i think that should be the focus on government action and what we need to get together to do
My issue with segregation is the notion of using it as a metric, as if where ever you have a high concentration of blacks there is a crisis and the solution is for the government to "integrate" them, i have a problem with that line of thinking, IMO intergration happens naturally in an open economic system where everybody's rights are protected
I'm about 15mins in and he's just going on and on about how Lincoln freed the slaves, black people used to vote Republican, Democrats used to be the "racist" party, etc. Still not hearing him actually acknowledge the reason Republicans are unpopular w/minorities.
No one is using it as a metric for progression. On the other hand, segregation could certainly be used as a metric of regression, because of the consequences of separating the community from the rest of the nation. That's the only way in which I'm using it as a metric. And yes, the government has been used against minorities. That's one of the reasons they should help minorities today (since it is directly responsible for the wealth gap between whites and blacks and the under-education or under-funded education of densely populated black populations even today) . As for the bold part, I've already explained to you that this is just idealistic. An open economic system of the Libertarian kind would fail to provide everyone the same rights, and subsequently fail to produce integration. That type of system would only work to draw more minorities to more densely populated minority areas, and separate the nation on racial lines. I've already went into the consequences of that, but you've already stated you disagree with my predictions. That's fine, but I'm failing to see the reason to continue debating if we've already agreed to disagree.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
It has been used as a metric of progression in public policy since the civil rights movement, apparently you have been living under a rock
And what happened after the civil rights is that a lot of blacks left black communities in the name of desegregation and also a lot of programs were created in the name of desegregation, now looking back we can see that it hurt the black community to have educated black people go into white communities in the name of desegregation
I'm not the first person to make a note of this and it's a well known observation and that is why I say segregation should not be used as a metric or a goal by the government and that shouldn't be the basis of addressing black issues
IMO the libertarian framework is superior, in that it says the fundemantal issue is violation of economic and individual rights, that should be the metric, and goal and the role of government, protecting rights
As far as segregation, that isn't really the governments role to get involved unless somebody is violating your rights
I'm not sure what your definition of an open economic system is but if it doesn't provide the same rights to all participants then obviously it is not an open economic system, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say by being against an open economic system, the opposite of an open economic system is a closed economic system with limitations on who can participate
And yeah we disagree, densely populated minority areas is neither here nor there unless those areas are government mandated which would make those areas a violation of individual and economic rights or if government is not protecting the rights of the people in the area
The bold makes no sense. You're not talking to the people you assume are using segregation or integration as a metric for progress. You're talking to me and the people that were in this thread. No one here has used it as a metric of progression; that's my initial point.
Also, it is now clear you're not very good at comprehension. I'm not saying that an open economic system doesn't provide rights to all participants. The implication of my statement was that using the Libertarian model, segregation would be promoted, racial tension and hatred would be reinforced, and the end product would be equal rights on paper ONLY. I honestly didn't think my audience would need me to expound on this, and I'm disappointed that I had to.
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
well again unless you have been living under a rock, its been and is used as a metric in public policy
you are the one that keeps bringing up segregation and keeps saying that segregation is bad by definition, you said that there are "densely packed minority areas" and im asking what is wrong with having "densely packed minority areas" and you keep saying they are bad by definition
IMO by you making the "densely packed minority areas" a negative by defintion you are using that as a way to measure how how well minorities are doing
so you can deny it but in the end you are using segregation as a metric
segregation is bad when it is government mandated otherwise its actually none of the government's business unless somebody's right to live wherever they want to live is being violated
i understand what you are saying, what i am saying is that you maybe have misunderstood what i meant by an open economic system, i mean it literally
im not a libertarian, i use their ideas but i dont support an libertarian economic system
i do agree with libertarians on the importance of an open economic system in economic development so i support policies that promote an open economic system
theworldismine13
God Emperor of SOHH
i just think its funny that people are attacking me when you where the one defending economic discrimination
Last edited by a moderator: