The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: Euler on June 21, 2009, 08:01:59 AM
-
Gene, the Christian Anarchist, called in two nights in a row to talk about racists and racism. He stated that the liberty movement should reject racism but not reject racists out of hand. He made an exception for the extremists. Ian got on his moral high horse and said in no uncertain terms that racism is completely intolerable. And further, that the liberty movement and the Free State Project should not encourage racists to join. I think Ian and the other hosts missed Gene's point. Racists are collectivists but so are liberals, conservatives, socialists, Communists, communists, and fascists. I think Gene wanted to know why racism is so more reprehensible than other forms of collectivism. If someone were a little bit prejudiced but accepted the FSP statement of principles, why shouldn't they go to NH? This doesn't mean that anyone has to associate with them. Don't true Christians believe that only they are going to heaven? In a sense, doesn't that mean that they think they are better than non-Christians? Don't all religious people believe that their's is the right way? As long as they as well as racists subscribe to the Non-Aggression Principle, aren't they by definition libertarians?
A secondary concern that the hosts had was that the media would use any racists members of the FSP to tar the whole movement. This is a legitimate concern but I think the media is so anti-liberty that they would make something up if they had to. The militia movement in the 90's had the same problem. I don't think that they were any more racist than the general population but the media tried to paint them that way anyway.
Gene's motivation may be based on his Christianity. Real Christians, like Gene, don't distinguish among sinners. They feel that everybody can be redeemed.
-
Trouble is, libertarian's enemies are working hard to associate the movement with right-wing hate groups. And, it's working. Inviting in racists does not help that.
-
Trouble is, libertarian's enemies are working hard to associate the movement with right-wing hate groups. And, it's working. Inviting in racists does not help that.
What do you mean by right-wing hate groups? I think many in the media (one of libertarians philosophical enemies) think libertarians are a right-wing hate group. Can't a racist be a minarchist or even a voluntaryist? I don't think Public Relations or public perception should be a major concern. If there weren't one racist in the liberty movement, our adversaries would say there was anyway. Hopefully, people know the media is full of it so why would you want to look good in their eyes.
-
I don't think an effort should be made to recruit racists, but if they join they shouldn't be rejected necessarily if they aren't hateful. I'm thinking of the people that just prefer to be around others of a certain type or just believe that people of certain races are generally better.
The important thing is to just make them feel uncomfortable about speaking all their thoughts in the open. Having some of the offending races around will likely prevent this.
-
I think Gene wanted to know why racism is so more reprehensible than other forms of collectivism. If someone were a little bit prejudiced but accepted the FSP statement of principles, why shouldn't they go to NH?
Since none of us have any control over who moves to NH anyway, what's the point of this question?
-
My brother and I who were raised separately are strong evidence that personality is a genetic thing. I prefer to spend time and do business with people who think and act similarly to myself. Does that make me a personalitiest. If I refuse to do business with someone who was born an asshole am I discriminating on the basis of a genetic trait he has no control over? I think yes and I can not defend such a position as superior to racism.
-
My brother and I who were raised separately are strong evidence that personality is a genetic thing. I prefer to spend time and do business with people who think and act similarly to myself. Does that make me a personalitiest. If I refuse to do business with someone who was born an asshole am I discriminating on the basis of a genetic trait he has no control over? I think yes and I can not defend such a position as superior to racism.
Since assholery is clearly not based on race, then you certainly can.
-
I don't associate with racists, and no one else here should either.
I really don't get this whole "libertarian family" circle jerk that goes on, where we should accept any trait in other people so long as they're libertarians.
Sure, I'd prefer all racists to be libertarians than not, but if you're a libertarian asshole you're still an asshole, and I don't want to spend time around/with assholes.
The whole point why racism is retarded is because it ignores individual behavior and merit infavor of a crass generalistic caricature. Judging people on their individual basis (i.e. whether they are an asshole or not) is the exact opposite of racism.
If someone is "born" an unscrupulous murder, is it wrong to judge them for it? Of course not. As far as understanding of consciousness goes, people have a choice to murder or not, so much as anyone has a choice to choose anything, so its perfectly rational to judge people on their actions, even if those actions are genetically rooted.
-
What's worse. A racist who is voluntaryist or a minarchist who doesn't have a prejudiced bone in their body. I'll admit that the former is a rare person. A minarchist supports stealing (taxation). Yet Ian seems to be a little more tolerant of minarchists than he is of racists.
-
Libertarians belive in freedom for all. They believe that they have no right to put themselves above another persons rights. Racists however put themselves at a point where they are above the other person and that other person should have no rights or is worth less then them and the rights that they should get.
-
Several years ago there was a study reported on by playboy that said the wage discrepancy between short people and tall people was larger than that of men and women or whites and minorities. What about sizists? Are they as intolerable as racists?
-
Libertarians belive in freedom for all. They believe that they have no right to put themselves above another persons rights. Racists however put themselves at a point where they are above the other person and that other person should have no rights or is worth less then them and the rights that they should get.
I've seen plenty of racists who don't think there should be different rights for different races, they just have a vague notion that certain races or "cultures" as they prefer to call them, are more violent, more lazy, more blank than other race's or "cultures".
Hellbilly on this very forum is a good example. While racist might be a strong term for his piss weak brand of "white people are afraid of talking about the problems of black peoples culture", he still quite clearly harbors collectivist views about groups of people being better than others, and as far as i know he's straight up libertarian.
I should probably reiterate my position on people not hanging with racists.
I think if it gets to the point where people are actually advocating treating other races differently is where I'd draw the line of association. However I'm pretty sure I could tolerate Hellbillys brand of weak "white people are at risk from other races/white people aren't allowed to talk about other races without being called racist" racism as long as he wasn't ramming it in my face every 5 seconds, since in most other respects he's an intelligent and reasonable guy.
-
Lord Humongous is the same way. His brand of racism is really about his perception of other's culture. I asked him a couple of times what it was about black people qua blackness that made them inferior, and he didn't have an answer. There's apparently nothing about their actual physical appearance or genetics, other than being commonly correlated with the culture he believes promotes bad behavior, upon which he bases his bigotry.
-
Libertarians belive in freedom for all. They believe that they have no right to put themselves above another persons rights. Racists however put themselves at a point where they are above the other person and that other person should have no rights or is worth less then them and the rights that they should get.
I've seen plenty of racists who don't think there should be different rights for different races, they just have a vague notion that certain races or "cultures" as they prefer to call them, are more violent, more lazy, more blank than other race's or "cultures".
Hellbilly on this very forum is a good example. While racist might be a strong term for his piss weak brand of "white people are afraid of talking about the problems of black peoples culture", he still quite clearly harbors collectivist views about groups of people being better than others, and as far as i know he's straight up libertarian.
I should probably reiterate my position on people not hanging with racists.
I think if it gets to the point where people are actually advocating treating other races differently is where I'd draw the line of association. However I'm pretty sure I could tolerate Hellbillys brand of weak "white people are at risk from other races/white people aren't allowed to talk about other races without being called racist" racism as long as he wasn't ramming it in my face every 5 seconds, since in most other respects he's an intelligent and reasonable guy.
Personally i call that a difference between stereotypes and racism. That might just be my own definition but thats how i see it.
-
oh look another jew thread
-
I'd like to know the definition of "racism". It can mean a lot of things, from believing in the non-personhood of people of different genetic qualities, to simply acknowledging the existence of those distinguishing qualities, depending upon whom you ask.
Personally I define "racism" as any judgment of another person which incorporates certain physical attributes designated as "race" into a distinction that is other than or beyond physical (i.e., explaining behavioral traits in terms of "race"). And I also refuse to refer even to those physical distinctions as "racial". They are specific physical differences having to do with skin color, bone structure, muscle density, et al. "Race" is an arbitrary and fictional concept created by ignorant people to explain biological concepts which they did not understand.
-
Gene is wrong.
-
Racists should be ostracized.
Hellbilly is not a racist.
-
how does racism work with freedom, i don't get it.. :?
-
how does racism work with freedom, i don't get it.. :?
If you don't like a person because of their race, you avoid them, have as little to do with them as possible, and maybe try to encourage others to do likewise.
That is how you be racist whilst not taking away people's rightful liberty.
-
I don't associate with racists, and no one else here should either.
I think you are mistaken. Almost everyone is "racist" to some extent and to say that none of the people you hang with are racist is making a mighty big claim...
-
The term "racist" is also a bit ambiguous. I "hang" with a lot of Chinese seeing as how I'm married to one and all of her family are Chinese. The Chinese people don't much like Japanese nor to they much like blacks. They are making advancement on both fronts though. A lady we were having dinner with told us about a relative from her small town who met and married a British black and the family was so angry they did not go to the wedding and would not speak to her for a long time. Now, however, they have accepted them and find their half-black baby to be cute. Keep in mind that this is in a country where girls spend a good portion of their money on "whitening" cream and even names like Avon and all major brands of make-up sell such products. There's no way we could even expect to be able to market something like that in the "land of the free"...
So people live and they learn. People make a "trek" through this world and change as they grow and see different things. I even have to claim that I have some beliefs which I have through my observations on this ball about how races are different in certain areas (read - inferior/superior). I doubt that any here will dispute my "observation" that black people are better at basketball. Does that make me a "racist"? There are always exceptions to every rule and where I can say (based on my personal observations again) that I have observed that Asians are better (read superior) at mathematics, that is not to say that there are NO blacks or whites who also excel in this area. It merely states that the average is higher in one race over another.
Please note that just listing DIFFERENCES in the races does not mean that one race is BETTER than another. Only that the percentages show certain tendencies towards certain traits. These percentages are usually small and there are always exceptional "exceptions". There is only one Chinese basketball player worth his salt even though there are 1.6 billion Chinese. Is anyone getting what I am saying here or will you all simply respond with the easy response and simply call me a "racist"???
-
I think that Gene's right. We live in a society that has elevated preferences between cultural (or racial) characteristics to be labeled "racism." Those who want to scream racism over any mention of differences between races want to ignore that there are obvious differences between cultures. Race doesn't always equal culture, but for many, it does. My psychology professor talked about an experience that she had when she was still a school psychologist. We had a shooting here at one of the schools and she was invited to come to the school to help the kids deal with it. It was a difficult assignment for her because the school was in an area of town that was predominately black. She observed the difference between how the black community expressed it's anguish and mourning, as opposed to other kids. (this was a highschool) The black community was very vocal, very out there about their feelings while the other kids were more reserved. It was difficult for her just because she wasn't used to it and it took some getting used to. I know a lot of people who would have labeled her a racist and said that she was creating stereotypes, regardless of the fact that she was using her own observations to make form her opinions.
Take that a little bit further and I can be considered a racist because there are many cultural differences that make me uncomfortable. I don't know if it's a Hispanic trait across the board, we seem to have more Cuban's here than Mexican's - but in those cultures, the men have a tendency to be very direct with their eye contact and size people up. If it's a female that they're looking at, (me) then if what they see is something they like, they continue to stare and sometimes make it quite clear that they approve of what they see. If it's a male, (my husband) then it's a look based more in male "sizing up." I used to think that it was just a rude - creepy Hispanic thing but I realized recently that it's just a cultural difference. I still don't like it, it still makes me uncomfortable and because of that, if I'm walking down the street by myself and I see that I'm going to walk past two Hispanic men, I will be more likely to avoid them or feel uncomfortable as I walk by them.
People get upset and call that stereo-typing...but if something like that is a cultural trait, that can be found more times than not within a specific culture...then how is it stereo-typing? I'm an intelligent human being, I can distinguish that there are those of a particular culture who do not embrace all of the traits of their culture. Some who even specifically distance themselves from them. The fact is though, that differences make us stand out. If I'm in a room full of cultural diversity, yet no one is actively embodying characteristics of their culture, then race/culture becomes a non-issue very quickly - if it was even noticed at all. Put me in a room where individuals ARE embodying characteristics of their culture, obviously - I'm going to notice, and personally - there are going to be some which make me uncomfortable. I tend to be a very reserved, quiet, kind of private individual. I also have difficulty understanding people with heavy accents. If your culture embraces loud talking, large gesticulations, a lot of touchy feely, a heavy accent or an urban vernacular then I'm probably going to stand on the opposite side of the room from you. Yet, as others have mentioned, merely pointing out these cultural differences or, god forbid, linking a personal preference or dislike with a cultural difference, can easily get one labeled a racist.
But, to be honest, I don't necessarily think that this begins and ends with race. I think it's an extension of a lot of the new PC victim mentality. It extends to just about any "minority" whether it be race, sexual identification or gender. There is a HUGE difference between those actions which are aggressive or which would infringe on an individuals natural rights as a human being, that are fueled by a hatred or feeling of superiority of another group and merely basing ones actions on a preference or dislike of said group's general characteristics. The advancement of more and more of a PC culture is blurring those lines though.
It just fuels a theory that I have which states that groups who have been oppressed nearly always become the oppressors and that isn't confined to race at all.
-
freedom_spryte,
Very well written. I can't find anything I disagree with. I think the FTL hosts don't want anything that can be construed as racism to be connected with the liberty movement. That is why they embrace an extreme politically correct stance on racism. To me, your average racist is no more repugnant that your average nationalist, statist, liberal or conservative. They are just people who are at different points of the voluntaryist/statist spectrum. Theoretically, if a racist supported the Non-Aggression Principle they would be by definition a libertarian. And I don't see how you could exclude such a person. The free-state project accepts minarchists who accept a limited form of robberty so why can't it accept a non-virulent racist?
-
It's a simple equation really...voluntaryists can't be true racists...because in order to BE a true racist, one would have to be an advocate of aggression towards other people. True racists wouldn't believe that those inferior to them have a right to life, liberty or property. Those who are NOT true racists, but who only want the freedom to exist in a world in which they can exercise their preferences without government interference...ARE voluntaryists. Personally, I don't see why the liberty movement should be so afraid of the media that they should attempt to distance themselves from THOSE individuals, any more than they should or would try to distance themselves from individuals who want the freedom to exist in a world in which they can exercise their preference of say...only doing business with men, or only doing business with women, or only doing business with those who are religious...or only doing business with....without any government interference.
The hard stance that they take against racism, to me, is inconsistent with the entire idea of voluntaryism. I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what it's supposed to be all about? Not agreeing with people's views, but fighting for their right to exercise them...as long as their views don't include aggressing against someone? I mean, wouldn't denouncing those people be totally inconsistent with the liberty movement?
I mean, really...how is it more difficult to explain to people why it should be ok for someone to choose not to do business with a person of a specific race or culture than it is to explain to someone why you believe that people should be allowed to do all the heroin they want, or explain the sometimes very complicated ideas of the free market and how it can replace government? People have just as much cognitive dissonance, and knee-jerk reaction to the idea that there wouldn't be any police to "protect them" in a free market world, as they do about the fact that yes, concievably someone could refuse service to someone based on their race/culture/gender/sexual preference.
-
Sorry Euler, I just said the same thing that you did...
-
I think the only people who should be denounced are those who advocate using violence against others. Whether those people are racists or not is irrelevant. The only wrinkle is that minarchists, constitutionalists and "true" conservatives could be construed as advocating violence because they support the existence of the state. But the Free State Project's (I'm not yet a member) statement of intent includes such people. Even though I'm a voluntaryist, I don't see anything wrong with the statement of intent.
-
Ian wouldn't accept the great H.L. Mencken in the Free State Project because of some of his views notwithstanding his support of liberty. If it the case that "FTL" cares more about money that being illegitimately being labelled racist, that is their right.
-
Thank you Admiral.
(http://www.alohio239.org/images/american-flag-eagle_sm.jpg)
If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife,
I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
'Cause the flag still stands for freedom
and they can't take that away.
I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God Bless the U.S.A.
From the lakes of Minnesota to the hills of Tennessee,
Across the plains of Texas from sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston and New York to L.A.,
There's pride in every American heart
and it's time we stand and say:
I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free,
And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me,
And I gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God Bless the U.S.A.
-
It's honestly just another symptom of special interest group victim mentality. Richard's right about there being 101 reasons not to like someone, the only difference is that the minority special interest groups have gotten enough money and media behind them to create PC lists of "it's not ok to say this and do this," I mean, ffs - if I use the word "he" or a word like "mailman" instead of "he/she" or "they" or "mailperson," in one of my papers, I'll get marks off.
Now, if it's a money issue for the show...I don't know. There's a difference between making it a non-issue and being so very anti. I can understand wanting to do what it takes...to a certain point...in order to get the message of liberty out there, but I still think that it's inconsistent.
-
It's a simple equation really...voluntaryists can't be true racists...because in order to BE a true racist, one would have to be an advocate of aggression towards other people. True racists wouldn't believe that those inferior to them have a right to life, liberty or property.
Wow! Quite a feat to explain what is in the mind of all "racists". So someone who feels that "races" are not equal automatically feels that the "less-equal" ones have no rights? How can anyone make such a claim. Is it impossible in your mind to have a view that some other branch of the human race is not equal to your branch of the human race without a conclusion that they don't have the same rights???
I quite agree that if Ian feels that his finances will suffer from showing any tolerance towards those who have a view that the races are different (a pretty obvious conclusion if you ask me) then he should do what he needs to to stay on the air. Ian is running a business and needs to make sure the business does not die...
You know, we shouldn't be so afraid of our "differences". We should be celebrating them. The French used to have a saying about the "differences" between male and female - "Viva la difference" I think we should treat the differences in races the same. Instead of being afraid of these differences (and claiming that there are none) lets be willing to accept them. If we then are so afraid of these differences, we can try to change them (although I think this is a mistake).
-
How could one conclude that another race is inferior (or not equal) to their own, but still feel that that race had the same rights as theirs? Perhaps it was a way over generalized statement. However, I've never met anyone who fell under the umbrella of "racist," who did not feel as though the race that they had such strong feelings against had any right to things like liberty, and in many cases, life. Those who were thrown under the umbrella, and called "racist," because of their preferences against certain aspects of certain cultures or races, I have found do not hold animosity towards them and merely wish to have the freedom to not interact with them. *shrug* perhaps there are more shades of gray then I realize. I don't see why people who simply do not want to engage with other races for their own personal reasons should be considered racist. We create preferences about things every single day, and act on them. I personally do not engage with socialist democrats, people who want to preach their religion at me, feminists or any other number of people/groups for any number of reasons. If any of those groups got the power behind them that minority groups had, then I'm certain they would find appropriate labels for me that were just as denigrating as "racist." Actually, the feminists already have a name for me, "traitor." - but, that's beside the point.
People have the freedom to educate others, about their cultures and their differences. Labeling people racist, because they have a preference, but do not believe that another race/culture should have their rights of life, liberty or property taken from them, just feeds into a victim mentality which creates more of a divide than promotes an atmosphere of individuals wanting to attempt to change mistaken ideas through interaction and education.
I understand weighing the consequences of engaging a principle, against the good of being able to continue spreading the message of liberty. But, if this is the attitude that other volunataryists are going to take up, either because Ian's feelings run stronger than that, or because they don't undertand that it's just a money thing...then I still call inconsistency. Not everyone is going to want to "celebrated their differences." I agree that that's the way things should be, but the truth is, for many people - they just don't want to. Given the choice, they would choose to stay in a protected world of their making, where they had control over who they did business with, who they interacted with socially, and who they met at their local grocery store. We may not like those choices, but my understanding of the voluntaryist principles that Ian advocates, and which I see many people here philosophizing about, is that they have the right to create those worlds. Of course, everyone has the right to ostracize those people, labeling them "racists." I just don't think that that label is accurate in those situations, or helpful in bridging cultural/racial divides.
-
How could one conclude that another race is inferior (or not equal) to their own, but still feel that that race had the same rights as theirs?
Sorry to be pedantic, but I believe there are plenty of people who are less intelligent, less moral, and all around lesser people than I am, but I still think they have the same rights as me because they're still people. I just make that determination on an individual basis rather than applying it based on race, because basing it on race is stupid.
-
I don't associate with racists, and no one else here should either.
I think you are mistaken. Almost everyone is "racist" to some extent and to say that none of the people you hang with are racist is making a mighty big claim...
I certainly have unknowing associated with racists...until that fact became known. Then I have as little to do with them as possible. I am not going to waste my time trying to change their attitudes.
-
I don't associate with racists, and no one else here should either.
I think you are mistaken. Almost everyone is "racist" to some extent and to say that none of the people you hang with are racist is making a mighty big claim...
I certainly have unknowing associated with racists...until that fact became known. Then I have as little to do with them as possible. I am not going to waste my time trying to change their attitudes.
Do you associate with known statists? Or once you find out someone's a statist, do you have as little to do with them as possible? The concept of a state has resulted in the deaths of at least 100M human beings last century. As repellent as the idea of racism is, it surely hasn't lead to as much misery as statism. This doesn't mean that I'm going to have the neighborhood racist over for dinner but I'm not going to look on him so much differently as a hard core statist.
-
I don't associate with racists, and no one else here should either.
I think you are mistaken. Almost everyone is "racist" to some extent and to say that none of the people you hang with are racist is making a mighty big claim...
I certainly have unknowing associated with racists...until that fact became known. Then I have as little to do with them as possible. I am not going to waste my time trying to change their attitudes.
Do you associate with known statists? Or once you find out someone's a statist, do you have as little to do with them as possible? The concept of a state has resulted in the deaths of at least 100M human beings last century. As repellent as the idea of racism is, it surely hasn't lead to as much misery as statism. This doesn't mean that I'm going to have the neighborhood racist over for dinner but I'm not going to look on him so much differently as a hard core statist.
Amen to that... The most dangerous "cult" in existence is the cult of government...
-
I think the hosts are handling things correctly.
Ostracize, discriminate against, poke fun at, call names, etc. to those who don't think like you do. That'll sure show 'em.