The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

But that harm isn't intentional. That's the kicker for me.

It's not intentionally helpful either. It's done for personal benefit.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not intentionally helpful either. It's done for personal benefit.

So, on one side we have: done for personal benefit, not intentionally harmful to others.

On the other side: done for personal benefit, and intentionally harmful to others.

I'm seeing a clear distinction.

In other news, this strikes me as a fair critique:

In general, conservatives prefer cultural to materialist analyses of human behavior. For years, for instance, conservatives have insisted that economic distress does not cause jihadist terror. The real source, they insist, is Islamic culture. For decades, they’ve argued that economic distress does not cause unwed pregnancy and drug addiction among African Americans. The real explanation lies with inner city black culture. Given those precedents, you would think conservatives would embrace a cultural rather than economic explanation for Trump’s appeal, especially when the evidence points so strongly in that direction. But when it’s whites acting badly, not blacks or Muslims, suddenly economic distress matters a great deal.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-political-correctness-from-the-right/507155/

 

[SweptbackFlame]

This guy should be president

 

[rms]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-political-correctness-from-the-right/507155/

haven't read through it yet but that excerpt seems like a misrepresentation of that culture

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[rms]

I don't get why he separates culture and economics, does he assume conservatives are too dumb to intertwine the two?

Blacks are thought to be a non-working class type of people, those who don't want to actually work and put the hard work in...get your hands dirty etc. That's why the jokes are always "Where do you hide something from a black man? His work boots." "There was a looting at a Walmart, but none of the work boots were taken" etc

Muslim, maybe that works, not really sure conservatives deny that poor muslims are more easy to radicalize etc. But can he cite anything? I don't read the Atlantic a lot, usually its quite good articles, but this one is shit.

Calling Trump voters/supporters bigots isn't even the correct term. Don't see the level of intolerance in that community as I do from the Bernie-bro crowd, why not just call it prejudice? Fear mongering? etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

The author of this article isn't voicing an opinion on Trump supporters - whether they're bigots or not, it doesn't matter here. He isn't making a claim one way or another. He's noting a phenomenon by which conservative thought often reduces controversial issues in specifically non-white communities to some kind of inherent, or core, cultural logic: i.e. Islam is an inherently violent religion, or black culture is inherently prone to laziness and drug addiction. The author is suggesting that, according to conservative theorists, it doesn't matter whether the historical economic conditions of Muslims or American blacks had been different - these groups would have turned out the same.

However, when it comes to white rural Americans, specifically the blue-collar communities that supported Trump, conservatives insist that economics is the core reason for their disparity, not to mention their racism, opioid addiction, etc. The author is saying that when it comes to white rural America, conservatives appeal to economics as an explanation for their behavior and downtrodden state; but when it comes to non-white communities, they claim that economics has nothing to do with it. It's a double standard.

 

[rms]

He's noting a phenomenon by which conservative thought often reduces controversial issues in specifically non-white communities to some kind of inherent, or core, cultural logic:

The author is saying that when it comes to white rural America, conservatives appeal to economics as an explanation for their behavior and downtrodden state; but when it comes to non-white communities, they claim that economics has nothing to do with it. It's a double standard.

And the implication by the author is not an implicit xenophobic/racial/ethnic/religious bias/prejudice/hatred etc?

Isn't the opoid addiction a north eastern/suburban issue more than rural? I thought rural was meth for whitey

 

[Dak]

The author of this article isn't voicing an opinion on Trump supporters - whether they're bigots or not, it doesn't matter here. He isn't making a claim one way or another. He's noting a phenomenon by which conservative thought often reduces controversial issues in specifically non-white communities to some kind of inherent, or core, cultural logic: i.e. Islam is an inherently violent religion, or black culture is inherently prone to laziness and drug addiction. The author is suggesting that, according to conservative theorists, it doesn't matter whether the historical economic conditions of Muslims or American blacks had been different - these groups would have turned out the same.

However, when it comes to white rural Americans, specifically the blue-collar communities that supported Trump, conservatives insist that economics is the core reason for their disparity, not to mention their racism, opioid addiction, etc. The author is saying that when it comes to white rural America, conservatives appeal to economics as an explanation for their behavior and downtrodden state; but when it comes to non-white communities, they claim that economics has nothing to do with it. It's a double standard.

Different standards are often appropriate for apples and oranges.

 

[Einherjar86]

And the implication by the author is not an implicit xenophobic/racial/ethnic/religious bias/prejudice/hatred etc?

Fair point, definitely. But the implication, which is implicit, is distinct from the argument, which is explicit.

Isn't the opoid addiction a north eastern/suburban issue more than rural? I thought rural was meth for whitey

It was just an example.

Different standards are often appropriate for apples and oranges.

Rhetoric works wonders when you don't want to bother with a counterargument.

 

[rms]

It was just an example.

Quit being a serious Sam, was just trying to make sure I still knew about the....forgotten man?

But the implication, which is implicit, is distinct from the argument, which is explicit.

Interesting, we devise two different arguments out of that piece

 

[Dak]

A minority of Caucasians in a subregion with different religions see an increase in meth usage and suicides when the economy changed to aid those on the coasts.

ISIS/sectarian/tribal violence erupt anywhere in the middle east (Islam) there isn't a brutal military government made up of a superior tribe/sector, while sitting on the richest resource in the history of the world.

 

[arg]

The author of this article isn't voicing an opinion on Trump supporters - whether they're bigots or not, it doesn't matter here. He isn't making a claim one way or another. He's noting a phenomenon by which conservative thought often reduces controversial issues in specifically non-white communities to some kind of inherent, or core, cultural logic: i.e. Islam is an inherently violent religion, or black culture is inherently prone to laziness and drug addiction. The author is suggesting that, according to conservative theorists, it doesn't matter whether the historical economic conditions of Muslims or American blacks had been different - these groups would have turned out the same.

However, when it comes to white rural Americans, specifically the blue-collar communities that supported Trump, conservatives insist that economics is the core reason for their disparity, not to mention their racism, opioid addiction, etc. The author is saying that when it comes to white rural America, conservatives appeal to economics as an explanation for their behavior and downtrodden state; but when it comes to non-white communities, they claim that economics has nothing to do with it. It's a double standard.

It's a combination of both cultural and economic in all 3 cases to varying degrees. I think it's roughly like this:

Jihadists: 5 eco 95 cul
Thugs: 60 eco 40 cul
Trump voters: it can swing the whole scale either way person by person
Aug: 90 eco 10 cul

 

[Einherjar86]

Quit being a serious Sam, was just trying to make sure I still knew about the....forgotten man?

That wasn't meant to be snarky, I was just saying it was an example. Meth could fit just as easily into the argument.

Interesting, we devise two different arguments out of that piece

Actually, you don't devise an argument; the author has already done that.

If anything, you infer an argument; but you shouldn't have to. The argument is explicit; and the author is suggesting that most conservatives strive to explain white bigotry and laziness by appealing to economic disparity, while economic disparity has no impact on black culture.

A minority of Caucasians in a subregion with different religions see an increase in meth usage and suicides when the economy changed to aid those on the coasts.

ISIS/sectarian/tribal violence erupt anywhere in the middle east (Islam) there isn't a brutal military government made up of a superior tribe/sector, while sitting on the richest resource in the history of the world.

So, the opioid addiction, which is what I specified, isn't affecting a small group of people. Nice pivot though.

Second, it's often associated with an increased push from pharmaceutical companies, not with any economic downturn. So why wasn't it the responsibility of those white people to resist, to be more responsible and not give in to addiction? After all, this is what we say about blacks addicted to drugs: "they should have been more responsible." Don't tell me you don't see the double standard here. You're not making a convincing argument.

Third, ISIS do not possess the means of production and distribution necessary to make anything of the oil on which they sit. Complete red herring to suggest they are somehow the symptom of an embarrassment of riches.

EDIT: wow, arg just gave the most reasonable response among this group.

 

[rms]

If anything, you infer an argument; but you shouldn't have to. The argument is explicit; and the author is suggesting that most conservatives strive to explain white bigotry and laziness by appealing to economic disparity, while economic disparity has no impact on black culture.

because they are racist (and any varied synonyms)

 

[CiG]

I didn't know the popular conservative position on black unemployment/unwed pregnancies was "it's the inner city black culture" and if it is, it's definitely not something I've seen many conservatives say. I have seen them say that inner city black culture is now acting as a barrier to success, but that culture is assumed to be a product of the welfare state and the war on poverty and thus not the main issue.

All the diagnostics I've seen almost entirely point to the war on poverty and the welfare state.

 

[Baroque]

Aug: 90 eco 10 cul

#1 priority for america is make sure aug keeps his money so he can complete his tour of licking whore anuses around the world, it'd be a shame if any of that money was spent on fixing roads, building schools and supplying medical care for the sick.

 

[CiG]

Licking filthy buttholes of whores is Aug's medical care and he's a nip so he's a minority, are you a fucking bigot bro?

 

[arg]

id rather tongue fuck a hooker's sphincter than feed a hungry orphan any day of the week

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't know the popular conservative position on black unemployment/unwed pregnancies was "it's the inner city black culture" and if it is, it's definitely not something I've seen many conservatives say. I have seen them say that inner city black culture is now acting as a barrier to success, but that culture is assumed to be a product of the welfare state and the war on poverty and thus not the main issue.

All the diagnostics I've seen almost entirely point to the war on poverty and the welfare state.

This is a really good point, because the distinction is subtle. When conservatives blame the welfare state, the suggestion is that it produces laziness by giving handouts.

But the welfare state is a twentieth-century invention; criticisms of black laziness preceded the introduction of institutionalized welfare, extending back into the nineteenth century.

When large numbers of poor blacks vote for Clinton, it's because of entitlement mentality. Why isn't it entitlement mentality when large numbers of poor whites vote for Trump?