Human beings are (rational) animals — gurugeorge

No one ever went broke under-estimating the average rationality of human beings.

The breakdown of the Black family and the atomization of the Black middle class in the 1960s, and the connection of that breakdown to crime is well documented — gurugeorge

It is well documented, true enough, and it isn't accidental. Black people were generally the recipients of very unfair treatment in housing policy. FHA rules explicitly or practically excluded blacks from its inception in 1935 through at least 1985. By the time this institutional disability was eliminated, housing prices had risen far too high for blacks to be able to buy houses. They were cut out of the major wealth generating device of middle income Americans. The black family has also been subjected to welfare policies which undermined the stability of families. The black population that migrated en masse out of the south in the 20th century were not able to establish an economic base for themselves before the depression, automation, and globalization began to eliminate the kind of jobs that they were generally hired to do.

Like most people of all races, blacks have authored some of their own problems. They have not collectively prioritized education; they have not practiced thrift as effectively as they could (cutting themselves off from internally generated funds); et cetera.

And you know what the concrete outcome of all this was? PFFT. Zilch. Zero. Nada. The war lasted another 5 years, unabated. It is as safe to criticize SJWs now as it was to criticize hippie faggot peaceniks in 1970, because there was very little of importance that hinged on their efforts. — Bitter Crank

[My bolding]

Not true. It did not continue "unabated". Here are the numbers for the last years of the war. It's no coincidence that its winding down coincides with increasing levels of protest.

Year------U.S. Troop numbers
1968-----536100
1969-----475200
1970-----334600
1971-----56800
1972-----24200
1973-----50

I disparage social justice advocates now no more than I disparage peace efforts 50 years ago. But let's be clear: Neither peace advocates nor social justice advocates ever got anywhere close to getting their hands on the levers of social and economic policy. Those levers are never left unattended or unguarded and they are well protected behind locked thick-steel doors.

The benefits of social justice advocacy and peace activism flow primarily to the activists, to the benefactors--not to the beneficiaries. Why? Because the act of protesting is good for the protestor. Literally. It's a healthy exercise in every sense of the word. It just happens to be totally ineffective as a method of getting at those policy levers. — Bitter Crank

Not getting direct hands on the policy levers (though this does happen in the case of revolutions—what about those SJWs in France in the 1700s?) doesn't make protest ineffective. It can be very effective, and the benefits flow to everyone. Society doesn't move on its own but when it's pushed. And those that are pushing are those that will be mass-labeled and disparaged as SJWs by actors with ulterior political motives who would just as well see society not move at all, but stagnate and rot rather than to give an inch to their political opponents.

it assumes that caring about social justice, whether through talking about it and the ways in which to secure it, and/or securing it through direct action, is somehow meaningless... — Maw

If anything makes social justice advocacy and action "meaningless" it is the belief that "the establishment" can be easily toppled, like Joshua marching around Jericho making noise until the walls come tumbling down.

The Establishment has walls that do not crumble from trumpet blasts. The foundations of the very thick, highly reinforced concrete walls are very deep -- right on bed rock. The gates of the establishment are closed to noise makers, social justice activists, do gooders, preachers, the perfectly politically correct (or not) and all sorts of other riff raff. Admission is by invitation only.

"Social Justice Activism will be tolerated in so far as it doesn't interfere with the flow of commerce. You are free in so far as you obey. We consider "irrelevant" what social justice advocates do -- so keep on doing it. Our motto is: "We don't care; we don't have to."

Aw, don't give up you big jellyfish ;). There's surely a happy medium achievable between belief in an imminent utopian revolution and despair at any change occurring at all, no?

Not true. It did not continue "unabated". Here are the numbers for the last years of the war. I — Baden

ALERT ALERT
major memory error

So... the Moratorium Committee organized the biggest Washington, D.C. demonstration for November 15, 1969 -- that's the one I was thinking of. (Hey, this was 50 years ago... I can't remember everything.)

Looking back at these figures, and at the time (when anti-war sentiment was peak) it didn't seem like it ended so soon. But... we were out of there in 1973.

1968-----536100
1969-----475200
1970-----334600

Social change has happened -- you've seen it, I've seen it. But I don't feel like I can claim with any certainty what it was, exactly, that led to it.

Activists are one force in any change. Take school integration: There was some agitation for integration prior to the 1954 SCOTUS decision, Brown Vs. the Board of Education which ruled that separate was not equal, and segregation was unconstitutional. By the time integration was widespread, far more than activists were involved: the US Department of Justice; Federal Marshals; the National Guard; local police; an army of lawyers, school boards, city councils, state governments, mass media, political parties, etc -- all this on both sides of the issue.

Somewhere along the line, school integration reached regional peaks, and then declined. Many schools are now effectively re-segregated.

The process of de-segregating and then re-segregating covers more than 60 years. There have been so many players involved, it is difficult to identify WHO or WHAT was most instrumental. At least two generations of activists -- pro integration and anti integration -- have been involved. Suburban land developers, building mass housing after WWII, were one of the major players. Mortgage lenders, operating on 1935 guidelines, were a second major group of players. Both would seem far removed from education policy. Despite an immense amount of litigation, community action, and so on -- many schools remain as segregated as schools ever were.

And not least -- segregation or integration is maintained by the individual decisions of millions of parents making family decisions about education.

Interesting example about school integration. Thanks. BTW I forgot to reference the troop numbers thing. If anyone is curious: https://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

Which sarcastic one-liner just underlines my point. — Baden

Which sarcastic one-liner evidently went over your head.

The topic of the conversation when you came bustling in with your irrelevant tu quoque was the Left and the reasons why it's being laughed at, and the reasons why it failed, and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future.

If you and Maw could possibly restrain yourselves from reflexively committing fallacy after fallacy for a moment, perhaps it might be an interesting conversation to have.

Yeah dude, totally not racist, sexist, transphobic... — Maw

Yes, correct. None of what I said was in the least bit racist, sexist or transphobic. The fact that you think the opposite demonstrates one of the reasons why the Left has lost and will continue to keep losing for the foreseeable future.

Like most people of all races, blacks have authored some of their own problems. — Bitter Crank

You realize saying that sort of thing makes you a "racist" and a "Nazi," right? :)

It's fascinating to me that people use the term 'Social Justice Warrior' as a derogatory appellation, because it assumes that caring about social justice, whether through talking about it and the ways in which to secure it, and/or securing it through direct action, is somehow meaningless, or misplaced, as if obtaining social justice was impossible or futile or unnecessary etc., when, historically (and presently), that stance is wrong and misguided. — Maw

In the first place, we all recognize that there's a well-meaning impulse behind SJW activism. But you can call a thing a name without the thing actually exemplifying that name. Would it be wrong to laugh at the term, "The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea?"

In the second place, "social justice" is an Orwellian oxymoron. "Social justice," like many other Left-wing buzzwords, actually reverses the meaning of a commonly-understood term - IOW, it means, precisely injustice.

And you wonder why we laugh.

You realize saying that sort of thing makes you a "racist" and a "Nazi," right? — gurugeorge

No it doesn't. Promoting the following pseudosicentific nonsense does make you a racist though:

"...we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations (into relative genetic closeness or distance). For humans, there are 3 broad and about 7 or 9 more refined sub-species, or "races,"
...It turns out that of the three main races, Asians tend to be the least promiscuous, Blacks the most, with Whites inbetween." — gurugeorge

Which is why you were warned that if you say it again, you'll be banned. For... being a racist. Unlike BC who is not.

pseudosicentific nonsense — Baden

Whether it is "pseudoscientific nonsense" and "racist "or not is a topic for potentially civil debate - but not on this forum, apparently, and since I respect the Forum's prerogatives - after all, we wouldn't want this wonderful resource to get into trouble, would we? - I'll leave it at that.

Yes, let's leave it at that. Your previous comments are not on-topic anyway, and I'd prefer we stick to the OP here. Future commentary on that issue will be deleted. Though what you have said in this discussion is fair target for criticism.

In the second place, "social justice" is an Orwellian oxymoron. "Social justice," like many other Left-wing buzzwords, actually reverses the meaning of a commonly-understood term - IOW, it means, precisely injustice. — gurugeorge

I sincerely doubt that Orwell, a left-anarchist who fought Fascists, would consider 'social justice' "Orwellian". The fact that movements for LGBT rights, worker rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc. were, and continue to be, fought for under the placard of justice, demonstrates how daft your opinion is.

And you wonder why we laugh. — gurugeorge

The reigning intellectual movement of the modern right calls themselves, in earnest, the "Intellectual Dark Web".

I think that some of those concerns are or may be noble and valid, but not as matters of any kind of justice. — gurugeorge

Curiously (but unsurprisingly), your examples of "injustice" are strawman that the aforementioned movements aren't targeted, but rather injustices that are the results from systemic oppression, or structural imbalances, e.g. black wealth inequality, worker 'unfreedom' and the resulting wealth inequality, reproductive rights and the opportunity for reproductive freedom. But since you believe in *cough*pseudoscientificgeneticdeterminism*cough*, I'm not surprised you think certain systemic inequalities cannot be eradicated or even mitigated.

They're not "Right," most of them are ex-Leftists who have become classical liberals (e.g. David Rubin), and some of them still consider themselves on the Left (e.g. Bret Weinstein)- but of course I understand that everyone to the right of Mao is now a "Nazi" these days :) That was a name given to them by a journalist, but it's amusing so they ran with it. — gurugeorge

"Classical Liberalism" is merely a re-brand for those of a libertarian-conservative persuasion, who don't want to use their terms because of the toxicity often associated with them. Libertarian is often considered too radical, and conservative too geriatric to be considered as an attractive, "reasonable" political position. Further, the term "Classical Liberal" is erroneously considered to be a branch of political philosophy under which, (per Rubin) John Locke, Adam Smith, and JS Mill, Jefferson, et. al. in the pitiful attempt to give it an air of intellectualism. Make no mistake, classical liberalism, as espoused by the "Intellectual Dark Web", is just a re-branding of conservatism. Brett Weinstein can call himself whatever he wants, but he's certainly not a Leftist. There's nothing "amusing" about the name, it's just cringingly stupid.

Curiously my post to which you're responding hasn't appeared, but what the hey.

the results from systemic oppression, or structural imbalances — Maw

But that's what's yet to be demonstrated. If you simply pre-judge that every observed inequality of outcome is the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances," then all you've got is a pseudo-science, because you're denying empirically obvious and evident differences in endowment for the sake of a fantasy idea of what human beings are like.

IOW, you are effectively starting with the unexamined assumption that people have equal potential, therefore any observed difference in outcome must be the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances."

The reality is that some inequalities are the result of systemic oppression and structural imbalances, yes, and historically a lot were; but some aren't, and today most aren't. (For example, in Sweden, which has the most highly developed system of gender equality of any country on Earth, 85% of nurses are female. Go figure.)

Further, the term "Classical Liberal" is erroneously considered to be a branch of political philosophy under which, (per Rubin) John Locke, Adam Smith, and JS Mill, Jefferson, et. al. in the pitiful attempt to give it an air of intellectualism. — Maw

Those thinkers did represent a "branch of political philosophy" - it used to be called "liberalism" until the term was hijacked by more socialist-influenced liberals (people who would have been called "social democrats" in Europe) who pushed the liberal faction in the US further to the Left in the course of the 20th century, so Friedrich Hayek (I believe it was, in the 1960s) coined the term "classical liberal" to denote the older form of liberalism. The term has been used that way among conservatives and libertarians since then, but it wasn't invented by them as some sort of grand cover-up plan, far less by the IDW people.

There's nothing "amusing" about the name, it's just cringingly stupid. — Maw

Hey, blame the journo who invented it in an attempt to mock/smear them.

Curiously my post to which you're responding hasn't appeared, but what the hey. — gurugeorge

No, it was deleted because you repeated in it (only in different words) the essence of your pseudo-scientific race-based and racist theories. Again, being ignorant is not an excuse for being racist and we've given you more than enough leeway already. Final warning.

"Classical Liberalism" is merely a re-brand for those of a libertarian-conservative persuasion, who don't want to use their terms because of the toxicity often associated with them. — Maw

To be honest, both the left and right have a habit of trying to rebrand themselves, find again their roots and try to sell their ideology to a new generation that is totally ignorant of the past.

Something totally normal for political movements.

But that's what's yet to be demonstrated. If you simply pre-judge that every observed inequality of outcome is the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances," then all you've got is a pseudo-science, because you're denying empirically obvious and evident differences in endowment for the sake of a fantasy idea of what human beings are like.

IOW, you are effectively starting with the unexamined assumption that people have equal potential, therefore any observed difference in outcome must be the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances." — gurugeorge

Inequalities that have resulted from structured oppression, historically and up to the modern day, have been well studied and documented. Feel free to read The New Jim Crow, Stamped From The Beginning, The Color of Money, and more. You are simply more interested in pseudo-science which suggests that these inequalities are the result of inherent genetic dispositions of gender and ethnicity. Your pseudo-science also doesn't explain wealth inequality, worker oppression, LGBT oppression etc.

Your whole spiel about "equal potential" and that the Left wants "equal outcome" is a tired strawman that I would expect from a high school student.

Those thinkers did represent a "branch of political philosophy" - it used to be called "liberalism" until the term was hijacked by more socialist-influenced liberals (people who would have been called "social democrats" in Europe) who pushed the liberal faction in the US further to the Left in the course of the 20th century, so Friedrich Hayek (I believe it was, in the 1960s) coined the term "classical liberal" to denote the older form of liberalism. The term has been used that way among conservatives and libertarians since then, but it wasn't invented by them as some sort of grand cover-up plan, far less by the IDW people. — gurugeorge

Mill considered himself a socialist, Jefferson was influenced by Locke, but also by Paine, who was radically different from Locke. While Adam Smith strongly favored pro-worker regulation. My point is is that there is no 'umbrella' term with which to fit these diverse set of thinkers. To place them under a single political philosophy is ahistorical, and yet that's exactly what modern classic liberals attempt to do. Regardless, my main point is that classic liberalism today is just a right-wing marketing ploy.

Hey, blame the journo who invented it in an attempt to mock/smear them — gurugeorge

According to Bari Weiss, who is a fan of and has written about the IDW, the term was coined by Weinstein.

To be honest, both the left and right have a habit of trying to rebrand themselves, find again their roots and try to sell their ideology to a new generation that is totally ignorant of the past. — ssu

Seems to occur more on the Right, who just re-package immoral positions for a modern age.

You are simply more interested in pseudo-science which suggests that these inequalities are the result of inherent genetic dispositions of gender and ethnicity. — Maw

As I've pointed out twice in this conversation, both things are possible: inequalities as a result of systemic imbalances and oppression, and inequalities as a result of different natural endowments. You are the one who's ignoring an important factor, I'm acknowledging both.

Your whole spiel about "equal potential" and that the Left wants "equal outcome" is a tired strawman that I would expect from a high school student. — Maw

Well then it should be easy for you to knock down then, shouldn't it? (But please, without circular reasoning ... without assuming that all inequalities must be caused by systemic factors ;) )

My point is is that there is no 'umbrella' term with which to fit these diverse set of thinkers. — Maw

Yes there is, they were called "liberals" - and as I said, Hayek used the term "classical liberal" to distinguish that older strain of liberalism from the social democracy that had come to be called "liberalism" in the US.

As I've pointed out twice in this conversation, both things are possible: inequalities as a result of systemic imbalances and oppression, and inequalities as a result of different natural endowments. You are the one who's ignoring an important factor, I'm acknowledging both. — gurugeorge

And as I pointed out previously, the Left is interested in socially-made injustices. That's the focus of the conversation I'm trying to have with you, but since you are intellectually incapable of grasping that concept and since the lines between socially constructed inequalities and inequalities that are the result of "natural endowment" are blurred for you, you continually digress into sciamachy with strawman.

Well then it should be easy for you to knock down then, shouldn't it? — gurugeorge

It's simple: even given complete equal opportunity, the Left doesn't assume that outcomes will be equal, or that potentials are equal. No one believes that given equal opportunities, anyone can be a professional basketball player. Read Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum and spare me of your stupidity and your strawmen.

Yes there is, they were called "liberals" - and as I said, Hayek used the term "classical liberal" to distinguish that older strain of liberalism from the social democracy that had come to be called "liberalism" in the US — gurugeorge

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, but as I pointed out it's mistaken to apply any umbrella term to a diverse range of thinkers that spans over 100 years.

And just say it @gurugeorge. Just say that you think black people are, inherently, intellectually inferior to whites. Just fucking say it. We all know you think it.

Seems to occur more on the Right, who just re-package immoral positions for a modern age. — Maw

Just who has the most immoral positions naturally depends on one's political views.

The left had it's heyday of repackaging after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowdays the younger generations are blissfully ignorant what the old Moscow-supported extreme left was like with it's Marxist-Leninist lithurgy in Europe or elsewhere. (In an ironic twist we now have a Moscow-supported extreme right.)

I don't think those talking about classic liberalism and people like Adam Smith are repackaging things. In the era of Trump they are more likely just to uphold the views of the "ordinary" right in the face of an imbecile movement (that believes in an inept narcissist) and that will likely chant "Lock her up" in the US at least until the 2020 elections (or until when Trump is thrown out of office or resigns). And in Europe there will be those few who march under new silly flags, but their extreme ideologies won't find a fertile ground as the people are just fed up with the botched immigration policies (at least in their view). The media will naturally make it a huge thing.

There isn't so much intense ideological passion in these movements as in 20th Century. Collective movements both on the right and on the left have too many skeletons in their closet from history.

History won't repeat itself, it will just rhyme a bit.

And as I pointed out previously, the Left is interested in socially-made injustices. — Maw

Sure, but have you actually identified socially-made injustices, or are you confusing them with inequalities that are the result of natural endowment? IOW, how much due diligence have you done separating out the factors?

the lines between socially constructed inequalities and inequalities that are the result of "natural endowment" are blurred for you — Maw

Leftists always project. :)

It's simple: even given complete equal opportunity, the Left doesn't assume that outcomes will be equal, or that potentials are equal. — Maw

My argument is that it's an unexamined assumption - it's not something you proclaim, because it's obviously so stupid. But it's the logically necessary premise on which your house of cards must be built, otherwise you'd be bothered by the question of which unequal outcomes you observe are the result of differences in natural endowment, and which are the result of oppressive human action (and therefore a matter for justice to sort out) - because obviously you wouldn't want to accuse people of oppression if they're not actually guilty of it, right?

it's mistaken to apply any umbrella term to a diverse range of thinkers that spans over 100 years. — Maw

The term "liberal" has been used as an umbrella term for those thinkers for several hundred years, and they're not all that diverse, they share some core principles.

What are inequalities of natural endowment, @gurugeorge? Say them.

My argument is that it's an unexamined assumption - it's not something you proclaim, because it's obviously so stupid. But it's the logically necessary premise on which your house of cards must be built, otherwise you'd be bothered by the question of which unequal outcomes you observe are the result of differences in natural endowment, and which are the result of oppressive human action (and therefore a matter for justice to sort out) - because obviously you wouldn't want to accuse people of oppression if they're not actually guilty of it, right? — gurugeorge

What is it that makes you think the assumption is "unexamined", as opposed to "examined, but not reaching a conclusion you agree with". You seem to be mistaking the ability to quote 'scientific' research and statistics, for a conclusion which would be reached by any rational person who examined then. Scientific studies do not show things to be conclusively the case, they derive theories, try to falsify them and then upon failing to do so, present the theory to the community. Statistics are even more vague and routinely misinterpreted.

I don't see any reason to presume the left has not examined the extent of natural endowment.

I think we can stop saying "natural endowment" and just use "genetics" as it's just a weasel word term anyway.