The Inherent Dishonesty of Black Conservatism

[OfTheCross]

Sowell seems detached from reality and c00nish to me. But I'll keep reading.

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

I just looked up Walter Williams' book and anticipate more unrealistic b.s.

Their opinions have some merit, of course, but the truth and best path forward is usually somewhere in the middle.

 

[David_TheMan]

Sowell seems detached from reality and c00nish to me. But I'll keep reading.



I just looked up Walter Williams' book and anticipate more unrealistic b.s.

Their opinions have some merit, of course, but the truth and best path forward is usually somewhere in the middle.

Lol, you make up lies about those you disagree with then end with the fallacy of the golden mean.

 

[OfTheCross]

Lol, you make up lies about those you disagree with then end with the fallacy of the golden mean.

I didn't lie about anyone and don't disagree with Sowell or Williams. I'm currently reading Sowell and will read Williams.

In the bit that I've read from Sowell, though, he seems disingenuous. Which is why I paused reading his book and I'm reading one of the books he cited because I want to get the information w/o his spin on it

 

[David_TheMan]

I didn't lie about anyone and don't disagree with Sowell or Williams. I'm currently reading Sowell and will read Williams.

In the bit that I've read from Sowell, though, he seems disingenuous. Which is why I paused reading his book and I'm reading one of the books he cited because I want to get the information w/o his spin on it

How is he disingenuous? Support that contention

 

[OfTheCross]

How is he disingenuous? Support that contention

Well, in Black Rednecks he cited An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. He cited that book to point out that before the Civil War Whites were lynched more than Blacks, I guess, to prove that it wasn't tied to race and that we adopted that culture from Whites and that's why we kill each other over a "diss".

...In the vernacular of our later times, he had been “dissed”—and he was not going to stand for it, regardless of the consequences for himself or others.The history of the antebellum South is full of episodes showing the same pattern, whether expressed in the highly formalized duels of the aristocracy or in the no-holds-barred style of fighting called “rough and tumble” among the common folk, a style that included biting off ears and gouging out eyes...

The violence for which white Southerners became most lastingly notorious was lynching. Like other aspects of the redneck and cracker culture, it has often been attributed to race or slavery. In fact, however, most lynching victims in the antebellum South were white.

So I read a bit of the book he cited. And even in that book it gives you insight into the conditions of Blacks then and why they may have been more prone to violence. In the section of the book directly before the part that he cited it says:

It is the custom in the South to permit whites to resort to violence and
threats of violence against the life, personal security, property and freedom
of movement of Negroes. There is a wide variety of behavior, ranging
from a mild admonition to murder, which the white man may exercise to
control Negroes. While the practice has its origin in the slavery tradition,
it continues to flourish because of the laxity and inequity of the administra-
tion of law and justice. It would not be possible except for the deficient
operation of the judicial sanctions in protecting Negroes' rights and liber-
ties. Both the practice of intimidation and violence and the inadequate
functioning of justice in the region are expressions of the same spirit of
relative lawlessness; both arc tolerated and upheld by the same public
opinion. Both are rooted in this strange Southern combination of conserva-
tism and illegality.• Both are expressions on the part of the Southern
public of its dissatisfacdon with formal laws, its disregard for orderly
government....
In this region the custom of going armed continually or having weapons
within easy reach at home was retained from antc-bellum days. This custom
was taken over also by the Negroes during Reconstruction days.' The
writer has been astonished to see how firearms and slashing knives a.re part
of the equipment of many lower class whites and Negroes in the South.
The laws against carrying "concealed weapons" are not efficient, as they
do not-and for constitutional reasons cannotr.-forbid the owning, buying
and selling of arms. White policemen have often complained to the author
that it is not possible to disarm the civil population. They do not urge
reforms, however, but take the prevailing situation as natural and inevi-
table. In the Negro community, where personal security is most lacking,
this dangerous pattern of having knives and guns around is most wide-
spread. It undoubtedly contributes to the high record of violent actions,
most of the time directed against other Negroes.

So, he's phony if he doesn't acknowledge that. It's in the same book he used. Why pretend that Blacks are just copying Cracker Culture when there are many more factors at play?

Anyways... I did that post on my phone so i don't have access to all my info and it's not formatted well.

 

[David_TheMan]

Well, in Black Rednecks he cited An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. He cited that book to point out that before the Civil War Whites were lynched more than Blacks, I guess, to prove that it wasn't tied to race and that we adopted that culture from Whites and that's why we kill each other over a "diss".



So I read a bit of the book he cited. And even in that book it gives you insight into the conditions of Blacks then and why they may have been more prone to violence. In the section of the book directly before the part that he cited it says:



So, he's phony if he doesn't acknowledge that. It's in the same book he used. Why pretend that Blacks are just copying Cracker Culture when there are many more factors at play?

Anyways... I did that post on my phone so i don't have access to all my info and it's not formatted well.

No he would be a phony if he contradicts or you can prove he doesnt believe what he says.

You have not done so. You have proven that he is a poor sociologist and cherry picks data for his arguments and he is known for that when he goes outside of economics.

Thay said you would be better off just pointing thay out and how he is performimg poor scholarly work instead of trying to argue domething you atent proving, like claiming he os disingenous or phony.

 

[OfTheCross]

No he would be a phony if he contradicts or you can prove he doesnt believe what he says.

You have not done so. You have proven that he is a poor sociologist and cherry picks data for his arguments and he is known for that when he goes outside of economics.

Thay said you would be better off just pointing thay out and how he is performimg poor scholarly work instead of trying to argue domething you atent proving, like claiming he os disingenous or phony.

Am I to believe that he didn't read the book he cited?

I was under the impression that he's an academic and provided well-researched and thought out information that happens to support his position.

If he's just some op-ed type of guy I'll concede that he has a clear agenda and shouldn't be read seriously. In which case he wouldn't be phony. He'd be Ben Shapiro.

 

[David_TheMan]

Am I to believe that he didn't read the book he cited?

I was under the impression that he's an academic and provided well-researched and thought out information that happens to support his position.

If he's just some op-ed type of guy I'll concede that he has a clear agenda and shouldn't be read seriously. In which case he wouldn't be phony. He'd be Ben Shapiro.

Like i said prove what you claim.
You can point out poor work, taking arguments out of context, or cherry picking data or phrases.

If you cant point out or prove him being disingenous or a phony best not to make that argument and then double down on it when you dont actually possess the ability to back up your claim.

 

[OfTheCross]

Like i said prove what you claim.
You can point out poor work, taking arguments out of context, or cherry picking data or phrases.

If you cant point out or prove him being disingenous or a phony best not to make that argument and then double down on it when you dont actually possess the ability to back up your claim.

If he's purposely cherry-picking data or phrases and misrepresenting information to bolster his arguments he's phony. He's not presenting a genuine case, and is making a fraudulent argument to the public.

That is, of course, unless he states his intent and position from the beginning and does not try to pass positions off as an unbiased conclusion to which he was led by the facts.

I thought he was an unbiased academic, so to me he was phony. But, if I'm wrong and he's an admittedly opinionated and biased researcher that cherry-picks information to support his predetermined conclusions, then he's not phony.

 

[David_TheMan]

If he's purposely cherry-picking data or phrases and misrepresenting information to bolster his arguments he's phony. He's not presenting a genuine case, and is making a fraudulent argument to the public.

That is, of course, unless he states his intent and position from the beginning and does not try to pass positions off as an unbiased conclusion to which he was led by the facts.

I thought he was an unbiased academic, so to me he was phony. But, if I'm wrong and he's an admittedly opinionated and biased researcher that cherry-picks information to support his predetermined conclusions, then he's not phony.

No, poor research doesnt mean you dont believe what you argue it can mean your are either incompetant or lack integrity. Both are different than being disingenous in what you argue though.

You might want to argue what you are actually capable of proving, you cant and havent proved he is disingenous or doesnt believe what he argues yet. When you can support that argument though i would love to hear it.

 

[OfTheCross]

No, poor research doesnt mean you dont believe what you argue it can mean your are either incompetant or lack integrity. Both are different than being disingenous in what you argue though.

You might want to argue what you are actually capable of proving, you cant and havent proved he is disingenous or doesnt believe what he argues yet. When you can support that argument though i would love to hear it.

Just because he believes his position doesn't mean he can't be disingenuous or phony.

If he is presenting himself as an unbiased, fact-led researcher, and yet he's purposely cherry-picking data or phrases and misrepresenting information to bolster his arguments, he is phony.

Readers would be led to believe that his work and conclusions are evidence-based when really it's agenda driven.

I can be wrong, though. If he's an admittedly opinionated and biased researcher that's known for cherry-picking information to support his predetermined conclusions, then he's not phony. In that case he'd just be another opinionated writer like Ben Shapiro or Glenn Beck.

Admittedly, I thought he was a scholar, not an op-ed type of writer. I may have been wrong.

 

[David_TheMan]

Just because he believes his position doesn't mean he can't be disingenuous or phony.

If he is presenting himself as an unbiased, fact-led researcher, and yet he's purposely cherry-picking data or phrases and misrepresenting information to bolster his arguments, he is phony.

Readers would be led to believe that his work and conclusions are evidence-based when really it's agenda driven.

I can be wrong, though. If he's an admittedly opinionated and biased researcher that's known for cherry-picking information to support his predetermined conclusions, then he's not phony. In that case he'd just be another opinionated writer like Ben Shapiro or Glenn Beck.

Admittedly, I thought he was a scholar, not an op-ed type of writer. I may have been wrong.

Lol,
A phony or a disingenous person doesnt believe in what they are arguing. They are not genuine.

So when you argue he is a phony or disingenous in what he argues, the onus is on you to prove that comtention. You have not been able to do so.

Sowell is a chicago school economist by profession. He isnt a scholar with regard to sociology or history. He shows he is out of his depth in other disciplines, but his poor scholarship doesnt equate with not being genuine in his opinion he just cant support it the way he eants to and reaorts to lying to try to support it

 

[OfTheCross]

Lol,
A phony or a disingenous person doesnt believe in what they are arguing. They are not genuine.

So when you argue he is a phony or disingenous in what he argues, the onus is on you to prove that comtention. You have not been able to do so.

Sowell is a chicago school economist by profession. He isnt a scholar with regard to sociology or history. He shows he is out of his depth in other disciplines, but his poor scholarship doesnt equate with not being genuine in his opinion he just cant support it the way he eants to and reaorts to lying to try to support it

That's not the only way to be phony or disingenuous. I gave you another example.

Like i explained in my previous post, he can believe his argument and still be phony.

But I've already admitted that I thought he was a scholar, not just an op-ed type of writer.

You're essentially telling me, though, that outside of economics he's trash and should not be viewed as a scholar.

I'll take your word for it as the little bit that I've read has proven to be poorly researched.

 

[David_TheMan]

That's not the only way to be phony or disingenuous. I gave you another example.

Like i explained in my previous post, he can believe his argument and still be phony.

But I've already admitted that I thought he was a scholar, not just an op-ed type of writer.

You're essentially telling me, though, that outside of economics he's trash and should not be viewed as a scholar.

I'll take your word for it as the little bit that I've read has proven to be poorly researched.

Ive explained to you why i disagree with you. Seems simple.

Ive said in this thread sowell is better sticking to exonomics, and that williams imho is a superior academic.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Your assessment is spot-on. But why are they blind to the world? White sexual access? White material access?

I honestly doubt "white sexual access" is a motivator unless they're looking at a very specific lady.

White material access is the obvious target for certain conservatives, especially social media influencers and the like. I don't know how often that explains the intellectuals.

Deep tendency for contrarianism can be a factor. Some people want to go against the grain and the very fact that most Black folk are liberal is enough to make some push conservative, or at least to latch onto every bit of evidence that "the majority" is wrong while looking past the evidence that they're right.

There is also the case of social influence/pressure when it comes to the ones who simply happened to be raised almost entirely within white conservative society.


@David_TheMan, on these pages you've pushed neo-Confederate authors, right-wing pundits, even straight racists, and are clearly coming from a right-wing perspective. What would you say was your influence into the movement when so few Black folk go that direction?