The Inherent Dishonesty of Black Conservatism

[AlainLocke]

This is pretty on point. I would also point to an interesting conservative dislike of Sociology, which can give incredibly damning evidence for the ridiculousness of bootstrappery, and associated ideas. This is not to say all conservatives dislike Sociology, just that there is a much more vocal opposition to many of the fields widespread conclusions coming from the Right, and conservative administrations within the US have dealt a great deal of damage to the field. I have to find what I believe was either a WashPo or NYT article that talked about this indepth.

Conservatives tend to think social progress should be driven by ideals and beliefs...instead of scientific discovery of solutions to society's problems...

And what I really don't understand is...

If government has the power and the resources to solve fukking problems...

But neo-liberal conservatives don't like government solving problems...they rather just people become superhuman and solve shyt through individual effort....

Are we just supposed to wait around for people?

Like I don't see how shaming people and taking away public resources help anyone...

So what is the role of government?


Why do conservative politicians even exist...since they don't care to solve use government to solve problems...and their job is to use government to solve problems...

 

[EndDomination]

Ayn Rand isn't at the heart of the modern american conservative.
Also Ayn Rand is an objectivist, not a libertarian, she disliked libertarianism and wrote against it, check out the writing between her and Murray Rothbard.
Conservatism is about tradition, but thats more of its fascist leanings which again show its not libertarian in origin.

Neoconservatism is nothing more than repackaged fascism of the 1920s under muscelini.

You'd be surprised, there's actually a book specifically about this called Goddess of the Market.
And I'm aware of her dislike of libertarianism (my bad if I misspoke), her writings and vision were co-opted by many modern American libertarians, and conservatives like Paul Ryan.
I'll check out the writing though, thanks for the information.
And neo-conservatism seems to be a mix of American jingoist exceptionalism and liberal internationalism, though your analysis may be on point as well.
Kissinger + Bush in the Middle East does stink of a kind of new Italian fascism, I'll flesh that thought out as well.

 

[AlainLocke]

And neo-conservatism seems to be a mix of American jingoist exceptionalism and liberal internationalism, though your analysis may be on point as well.

That's why it's important to make a distinction.

Because conservatives like corporatists and fascists hate and I mean absolutely hate liberalism and the leftwing...

And fascists and corporatists and integralists are collectivists and esoteric and the nation is almost like a spiritual mythical being...and it's citizens are part of an organic whole and they are special as fukk...

That form of conservatism is a special European brand...and you see some of it in South America in Brazil and Argentina...

Your description of the most popular conception of USA conservatism is spot on...

American jingoist execptionalism, classical liberalism and liberal internationalism.

 

[David_TheMan]

Let me start from the beginning: I am a middle-class Black person, the progeny of three generations of Black families who were the very grouping of people he's talking about; those who rose above an excelled, obtained education nearly impossible but very few to gain, and lived lives at standards well-above their fellow Black men and women. I read the entirety of the passage, as well as his argument in defense of some portions of the Bell Curve, and Intellectuals and Society. I'm saying his analysis, which appears to be dual-layered, allows for an examination of the reasoning behind this "mindset" and the evidence he provides shows that there is far more to the equation that "culture" and "mindset" babied and fed by the liberal elites who need a crusade. That's where the inherent dishonesty is, that he has the ability, the logical skills, and the awareness of these "other" variables, and while he'll mention their source, or the variable explicitly, and then reach a different conclusion. I'm sure if you've read the first chapter of Intellectuals and Society, you're well aware of the poorly placed argument about Communist ideals and labour which start the chapter out. He sets up a straw-man and then burns it down, while the evidence he provides in Basic Economics provides amble material for a separate conclusion.
I take issue with your vesting more power in the legislature, this is coming from my examination of both Justice Taney, Justice Marshall, and Justice Brandeis, even Justice Scalia; all of whom practiced a pure form of statecraft through judicial opinions, this is oft-needed, legislative powers allow too much of a bias balancing act.
Its not their disagreeance alone that causes me issue, its the conclusions they come to. Unfortunately this post was not nearly as long as I'd prefer, it would take me weeks of writing to fully flesh out my issues, step-by-step.

What you are is irrelevant though to what he argued. Its a non starter and irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Now as to Sowell first. Regarding his actual argument in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, if you read what he said why did you deliberately lie about his actual argument, which was that to claim racism is the reason for lowering black educational achievement is false because in times with more racist blacks achieved at a greater degree with more overt racism against them. You've yet to tell me how you can support your initial contention about his reasononig when he states this outright in the book. As for Intellectuals and Society, I have read this as well, nothing is por about his argumentation of Communist ideals and labor, its pretty much a restatement of the Austrian critique of socialist economic planning from Mises, same thing from Sowell's own educational school, the chicago school, as stated by MIlton Friedman. If you disagree that is fine, but to claim its not held by many mainline economic schools is false. It isn't a strawman either in the take down, again its common established critiques held by many in the economic field, in austrian and chicago schools of economics.

Too this again I say argue with intellectual honesty, him disagreeing with you doesn't mean he is intellectually dishonest, doesn't mean he is ignorant, doesn't mean anything but he disagrees. Especially when he is atleast logically consistant in his methodlogy.

You can take issue with Thomas's stance regarding legislative power all you want. That again is a disagreement, not him being intellectually dishonest. Again he has said openly his stance that bad law should be fixed by the legislature, the only move he is willing to make is if it violates the Constitution, if he has no explicit prohibition via Consittution he will defer because it isn't the Courts job to create legislature. Now agree with that sentiment or not, fine, but to say he is intellectually dishonest is a lie and its you who is practicing intellectual dishonesty in saying so. Other judges have a different view of the role of the court isn't an attack on the validity or invalidity of Thomas's stance, it just means they ahve difference stance.

Again like I said, you really need to check the inherent bias in your own posts. There is no need to ascribe dishonesty to clear disagrement of ideas. I say this as disagreeing on ideological foundations of both men, but I know exactly the reasoning they use and they use it consistantly. Except for Sowell, when it comes to national security and international politics.

 

[David_TheMan]

You'd be surprised, there's actually a book specifically about this called Goddess of the Market.
And I'm aware of her dislike of libertarianism (my bad if I misspoke), her writings and vision were co-opted by many modern American libertarians, and conservatives like Paul Ryan.
I'll check out the writing though, thanks for the information.
And neo-conservatism seems to be a mix of American jingoist exceptionalism and liberal internationalism, though your analysis may be on point as well.
Kissinger + Bush in the Middle East does stink of a kind of new Italian fascism, I'll flesh that thought out as well.

I'm not surprised, at all, I know what I'm talking about and I know what the neocons and paleocons are and how they aren't libertarians in the slightest. Just how neoliberals use communist terminology to appears a certain way, GOP politicians and establishment do the same thing.

Most libertarians don't co-opt anything she spoke of, if anything she is one who co-opted and ran off on her own tangent the ideas that libertarians already had. She learned from Hazlitt about Mises and the Austrian school and was influenced greatly by American Libertarianism then from Libertarian principles she developed her concept of objectivism. So the order and levels of influence regarding libertarianism and Rand is reversed.

As for Paul Ryan, he is a neoconservative through and through, so he can talk about Rand all he wants, his legislative actions point to him not even being a true objectivist in the slightest. Now the neocons, and traditional GOP have loved to usurp and try to use libertarian terms and objectivist terms to appeal to these groups, but the mainstream average GOP politician and voter hate libertarianism and its ideals. I can think of no greater example of this than the GOP establishment booing of Ron Paul when he said america should not bomb other nations and should treat them how we would like other nations to treat us. If there was any inkling of real support for libertarianian principles in the GOP Ron Paul or Rand Paul would have been selected by the GOP voter, they were soundly and loudly rejected.

 

[EndDomination]

What you are is irrelevant though to what he argued. Its a non starter and irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Now as to Sowell first. Regarding his actual argument in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, if you read what he said why did you deliberately lie about his actual argument, which was that to claim racism is the reason for lowering black educational achievement is false because in times with more racist blacks achieved at a greater degree with more overt racism against them. You've yet to tell me how you can support your initial contention about his reasononig when he states this outright in the book. As for Intellectuals and Society, I have read this as well, nothing is por about his argumentation of Communist ideals and labor, its pretty much a restatement of the Austrian critique of socialist economic planning from Mises, same thing from Sowell's own educational school, the chicago school, as stated by MIlton Friedman. If you disagree that is fine, but to claim its not held by many mainline economic schools is false. It isn't a strawman either in the take down, again its common established critiques held by many in the economic field, in austrian and chicago schools of economics.

Too this again I say argue with intellectual honesty, him disagreeing with you doesn't mean he is intellectually dishonest, doesn't mean he is ignorant, doesn't mean anything but he disagrees. Especially when he is atleast logically consistant in his methodlogy.

You can take issue with Thomas's stance regarding legislative power all you want. That again is a disagreement, not him being intellectually dishonest. Again he has said openly his stance that bad law should be fixed by the legislature, the only move he is willing to make is if it violates the Constitution, if he has no explicit prohibition via Consittution he will defer because it isn't the Courts job to create legislature. Now agree with that sentiment or not, fine, but to say he is intellectually dishonest is a lie and its you who is practicing intellectual dishonesty in saying so. Other judges have a different view of the role of the court isn't an attack on the validity or invalidity of Thomas's stance, it just means they ahve difference stance.

Again like I said, you really need to check the inherent bias in your own posts. There is no need to ascribe dishonesty to clear disagrement of ideas. I say this as disagreeing on ideological foundations of both men, but I know exactly the reasoning they use and they use it consistantly. Except for Sowell, when it comes to national security and international politics.

I'm saying his claim is false. His presentation of the evidence, a small sampling of schools that continued to produce excellence in Black scholarship, and leadership, does not negate racism at the root of poor Black academic achievement today, nor does the end of segregation and liberal sloppiness in rendering schools "neighborhood schools" negate racism as the root of the Black academic achievement gap. The dishonesty is in his presentation, and conclusion.

 

[David_TheMan]

I'm saying his claim is false. His presentation of the evidence, a small sampling of schools that continued to produce excellence in Black scholarship, and leadership, does not negate racism at the root of poor Black academic achievement today, nor does the end of segregation and liberal sloppiness in rendering schools "neighborhood schools" negate racism as the root of the Black academic achievement gap. The dishonesty is in his presentation, and conclusion.

Saying you think his claim is false or you disagree isn't the same as claiming he is being intellectually dishonest. You know that right?
He doesn't just use Dunbar, he makes a comparison to Harlem, predominantly black working class and NYC lower east side schools which were predominantly white working class during the 1940 and how they have similar Standardized testing scores and showed a similar rise from working to middle class growth.
He points out a school currently in Cali for the teacher raised reading score using phonics and the state threatened to fire her.
He doesn't argue that racism doesn't negate the racism of today. He literally says it can not be the sole claim of the white liberal that racism is the reason of today's poor achievement when in more overtly racist times the same results were not prevalent and that the real reason for loss of educational attainment, rate of growth, is that its liberal policy. He never said racism didn't exist, and he was quite open about his rationale and throughout process and his reasoning contained no incosistancy to point to it being dishonest. So again you need to realize disagreeing with your contention isn't dishonest, its really just disagreement.

 

[EndDomination]

Saying you think his claim is false or you disagree isn't the same as claiming he is being intellectually dishonest. You know that right?
He doesn't just use Dunbar, he makes a comparison to Harlem, predominantly black working class and NYC lower east side schools which were predominantly white working class during the 1940 and how they have similar Standardized testing scores and showed a similar rise from working to middle class growth.
He points out a school currently in Cali for the teacher raised reading score using phonics and the state threatened to fire her.
He doesn't argue that racism doesn't negate the racism of today. He literally says it can not be the sole claim of the white liberal that racism is the reason of today's poor achievement when in more overtly racist times the same results were not prevalent and that the real reason for loss of educational attainment, rate of growth, is that its liberal policy. He never said racism didn't exist, and he was quite open about his rationale and throughout process and his reasoning contained no incosistancy to point to it being dishonest. So again you need to realize disagreeing with your contention isn't dishonest, its really just disagreement.

There's a dishonesty in the presentation of the evidence. I'm not arguing with some of the conclusions (especially those regarding alternative methods for educating "achieving" populations of students. Just his application of the ideals to some of the schools; he notes repeatedly that the schools with the most success, even when over-crowded, had over-educated, teachers, a symptom of their being pushed away from White society. He then pushes the idea that its White liberals complaining about the inherent underachievement of Black students, using those samples as evidence to the contrary
Pay close attention to his incredibly ridiculous logic regarding Brown v Education and the "inherently unequal" line. He quite literally takes it out of context, and tries to disprove this claim by pointing out a handful of schools, as if this negates the inherent subjugation of apartheid schools. High achievement of a few schools does not negate the inherent systemic inequality of the schools in segregation, not matter how it is presented.
I agree with some of his other points as well: the ridiculous characterisations of the difference between Booker T. Washington and WEB Dubois, the necessity of educating the Black population as a whole, the "acting White" claims (as a person who has experienced and heard this throughout their lifetime), and some of the issues with the change of leadership of Black colleges. But there are clearly dishonest points, not just because I disagree with him, but because it doesn't seem he agrees with what he's saying.

 

[David_TheMan]

There's a dishonesty in the presentation of the evidence. I'm not arguing with some of the conclusions (especially those regarding alternative methods for educating "achieving" populations of students. Just his application of the ideals to some of the schools; he notes repeatedly that the schools with the most success, even when over-crowded, had over-educated, teachers, a symptom of their being pushed away from White society. He then pushes the idea that its White liberals complaining about the inherent underachievement of Black students, using those samples as evidence to the contrary
Pay close attention to his incredibly ridiculous logic regarding Brown v Education and the "inherently unequal" line. He quite literally takes it out of context, and tries to disprove this claim by pointing out a handful of schools, as if this negates the inherent subjugation of apartheid schools. High achievement of a few schools does not negate the inherent systemic inequality of the schools in segregation, not matter how it is presented.
I agree with some of his other points as well: the ridiculous characterisations of the difference between Booker T. Washington and WEB Dubois, the necessity of educating the Black population as a whole, the "acting White" claims (as a person who has experienced and heard this throughout their lifetime), and some of the issues with the change of leadership of Black colleges. But there are clearly dishonest points, not just because I disagree with him, but because it doesn't seem he agrees with what he's saying.

You can bold it however you like, putting it in bold text doesn't support for rationally supporting a statement and you haven't.
There is no inherent dishonesty in the way he presents his argument, mainly because education is but one argument in a larger argument he is presenting and he specifically presents different places over different periods of time with different economic classes of black to make a point.

The fact that you still deliberately lie about his actual argument, in this thread claiming he says white liberals complaining about racism against blacks is countered by what he presents is wrong. Again and for the last time, his argument isn't that blacks don't suffer from racism, his argument is clearly white racism against blacks is not the main criteria attributing to underperformance because in times of greater overt racism in US society, white racism didn't prove to be an effective buffer against black educational achievement. Period. That is his argument.

Actually he didn't take the line from Brown v. Board out of context, he took it literally and juxaposted it with Marshall's literal knowledge that he was speaking a lie from his own education. And again, this wasn't presented by him in context to government mandated segregation and jim crow, it was specifically presented in context of education and the Dunbar high. So again we have you accusing Sowell of being dishonest, when in your 2nd paragraph you are again guilty of dilebrately lying about what he actually argues.

Funily enough I disagree with his claim of "acting White" and the general BS presented about black americans being anti-education and I've pointed out the fallacies of this argument in other threads. Yet again while I disagree, with his statement, I don't accuse him of intellectual dishonesty because he isn't displying it.

Again you need to learn the difference between disagreeing with a conclusion or point, and a person being intellectually dishonest or claiming that a group of ideological holders are inherently dishonest, like this thread tries to claim.

 

[EndDomination]

You can bold it however you like, putting it in bold text doesn't support for rationally supporting a statement and you haven't.
There is no inherent dishonesty in the way he presents his argument, mainly because education is but one argument in a larger argument he is presenting and he specifically presents different places over different periods of time with different economic classes of black to make a point.

The fact that you still deliberately lie about his actual argument, in this thread claiming he says white liberals complaining about racism against blacks is countered by what he presents is wrong. Again and for the last time, his argument isn't that blacks don't suffer from racism, his argument is clearly white racism against blacks is not the main criteria attributing to underperformance because in times of greater overt racism in US society, white racism didn't prove to be an effective buffer against black educational achievement. Period. That is his argument.

Actually he didn't take the line from Brown v. Board out of context, he took it literally and juxaposted it with Marshall's literal knowledge that he was speaking a lie from his own education. And again, this wasn't presented by him in context to government mandated segregation and jim crow, it was specifically presented in context of education and the Dunbar high. So again we have you accusing Sowell of being dishonest, when in your 2nd paragraph you are again guilty of dilebrately lying about what he actually argues.

Funily enough I disagree with his claim of "acting White" and the general BS presented about black americans being anti-education and I've pointed out the fallacies of this argument in other threads. Yet again while I disagree, with his statement, I don't accuse him of intellectual dishonesty because he isn't displying it.

Again you need to learn the difference between disagreeing with a conclusion or point, and a person being intellectually dishonest or claiming that a group of ideological holders are inherently dishonest, like this thread tries to claim.

I wanted to re-up this thread while coming across some of my earlier research regarding Sowell, there was a fantastic article published about his intellectual dishonesty in The Journal of African American History, entitled: "THOMAS SOWELL'S QUIXOTIC QUEST TO DENIGRATE AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURE: A CRITIQUE."

Black Rednecks and White Liberals is the latest salvo in Thomas Sowell's continuing crusade to represent allegedly dysfunctional value orientations and behavioral characteristics of African Americans as the principal reasons for persistent economic and social disparities.1 Sowell, along with other black conservatives, maintains that African Americans' lack of social advancement stems from the failure to adopt mainstream middle-class, Anglo-American values and behaviors. As in many of his previous works, Sowell's strategy in Black Rednecks emphasizes the use of highly selective historical case studies designed to demonstrate that other groups have overcome presumably similar forms of institutional discrimination, in contrast to the record of African Americans. Along the way he introduces and attacks a variety of caricatures of multiculturalism and liberalism that would be largely unrecognizable to proponents of these ideologies

 

[OfTheCross]

Good talk. I just picked up Black Rednecks...lol. i immediately had more questions than answers and went to the index to see the sources.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

People have to realize conservatism including a black conservativism can be a profitable business venture. . Its sad that most people don't understand the difference between facts and assertions. That includes arguments that lack objectivity. People like Thomas Sowell is playing that game. I would actually be more upset if he actually believe what he says. Also, I find it ironic how black conservatives create youtube channels that blow up within a year. At the end of the day some popularity comes from telling white people what they want to hear about black people. Candice Owens is a good example.

I truely believe blacks can be and are conservatism. Unfortunately the book lickers are the ones who get popular.

 

[David_TheMan]

I wanted to re-up this thread while coming across some of my earlier research regarding Sowell, there was a fantastic article published about his intellectual dishonesty in The Journal of African American History, entitled: "THOMAS SOWELL'S QUIXOTIC QUEST TO DENIGRATE AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURE: A CRITIQUE."

You found people who disagree with Sowell in academia. Wow. lol

 

[David_TheMan]

People have to realize conservatism including a black conservativism can be a profitable business venture. . Its sad that most people don't understand the difference between facts and assertions. That includes arguments that lack objectivity. People like Thomas Sowell is playing that game. I would actually be more upset if he actually believe what he says. Also, I find it ironic how black conservatives create youtube channels that blow up within a year. At the end of the day some popularity comes from telling white people what they want to hear about black people. Candice Owens is a good example.

I truely believe blacks can be and are conservatism. Unfortunately the book lickers are the ones who get popular.

Prove he is playing a game and doesn't believe what he is saying and arguing.

 

[David_TheMan]

Good talk. I just picked up Black Rednecks...lol. i immediately had more questions than answers and went to the index to see the sources.

A nice companion with that book is to read the Walter Williams book Race and Economics, there is a great cross argument between the two but Williams shows his more consistent and well thought out argumentation