I'm not sure social constructs are a good way to think these issues, personally, because there are members of the society that had little to no input on how they ought to be categorized. Social constructs suggest a consensus and a collaboration, and I doubt such a thing has occurred.

One can understand the self-identification with a race, though, especially in America, where these distinctions have been pounded into our heads our whole lives, even after the unspooling of the human genome has discredited them. For many it was a matter of life and death. But nowadays it's just de rigueur.

However, I don't think pursuing responsibility is what "modern liberalism" does. It simply tries to force people into acting in ways it considers "responsible" - that is not liberal. That is authoritarian. — Tzeentch

Affordable healthcare isn’t responsible? Regulations aren’t responsible? Etc.

Naturally. Wherever man is free, there exists inequality. The only way to make people more equal is to make them less free. The more equal people are made, the less free they are.

Moreover, the way governments make people equal is through the use of force. The more equal people are to be made, the more far-reaching governmental powers will have to be, and the more extreme their measures.

The question that never seems to be asked is what happens to all that power accumulation at the top. — Tzeentch

Civil Rights means the government is divided against itself. One part tries to protect equal opportunity, equality under the law, etc. from the other part.

You could accuse Adams of covert racism. What he said wasn't racist on its face. Just saying.

A tricksters job is only to show us what’s important. So what’s more important, freedom or responsibility? A libertarian will scream like a blue faced antisemitic berserker…

So what’s more important, freedom or responsibility? — praxis

I think they go hand in hand. I may have missed your point.

That apparently not everyone thinks they go hand in hand.

Still not following. Adults are responsible. Children are dependent on responsible adults. The slave mentality lurks there. It's insidious and dangerous.

But that's not what's really disappointing to me about the degree to which many blacks hate whites. It's that they're doing the very thing they condemn. They're caught in a trap. The only way to freedom is to forgive.

First time that I heard the expression “white trash” was when I was around 11 years old. Some cranky old Hawaiian woman had stepped into the bus at school for some reason, I don’t recall everything about the incident, and called me and the only other haole (white person) on the bus white trash. Later I had to ask my mom what it meant. Anyway, can you imagine the level of hostility you must have to feel in order to randomly insult children? Another oddity is that my family was middle class and the other haole’s family was quite affluent.

The backstory is that the Hawaiians got fucked over good by people who had the choice to not fuck them over. The old lady also had a choice but wasn’t doing what they did and what they continue to do.

The old lady let the bastards win. She let them mold her into a bastard just like themselves. That's the trap.

You have to figure out that you're not helpless. You can take responsibility for who you are. At the very least you own that.

Another way to explain it is that you can't hurt others without hurting yourself. It's an all purpose curse.

Affordable healthcare isn’t responsible? Regulations aren’t responsible? Etc. — praxis

No, you're not getting my meaning.

Forcing people to act in ways that you perceive as benefitting the common good has nothing to do with responsibility. Responsibility is taken (up voluntarily by the individual), not imposed (through governmental threat of violence).

Civil Rights means the government is divided against itself. One part tries to protect equal opportunity, equality under the law, etc. from the other part. — frank

Sure, and I'm not saying that all equality bad.

But the pursuit of equality is anti-liberal by definition, so it makes no sense that those who campaign for ever more equality should call themselves liberal.


Ironically, both these cases remind me of Orwellian double-speak.

But the pursuit of equality is anti-liberal by definition, so it makes no sense that those who campaign for ever more equality should call themselves liberal. — Tzeentch

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

These are the words of a 19th Century liberal. A 20th Century liberal sounds like this:

"This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day."

I don't know of any definition of "liberal" that isn't essentially about equality of some kind.

I don't know of any definition of "liberal" that isn't essentially about equality of some kind. — frank

I don't know of any that is.

But that's besides the point.

Most societies seek some sort of medium between liberty and equality. That doesn't change anything about the pursuit of equality being anti-liberal in nature.

Pursuers of equality calling themselves liberal are deceiving themselves and others. It's as simple as that.

That doesn't change anything about the pursuit of equality being anti-liberal in nature. — Tzeentch

It's not anti-liberal.

I have been 15 years in the US and I don't remember a single day when liberal media did not provide some info about black people. You can search CNN at the time you read my comment, if you don't trust me. There definitely will be something about black people somewhere (it has been like that the last 15 years, and the odds are too small that it will not be the same at the time you read my comment). It's like they are trying to educate people all the time about accepting blacks, and definitely they keep making it a major political/social issue.

Whereas this happens, you see how fast Asian community is growing in the US and you might learn that the biggest minority in the USA are not blacks, but Hispanics (who prefer to identify mostly as "other" or "mixed" race).

Blacks, like whites, I think will see their numbers shrinking. While all this happens in this country, you keep hearing about white and black all the time, just because Republicans and Democrats want to play the political game in that way.

If you go and ask Hispanics and Asians how they feel, they will probably tell you that they are discriminated by both whites and blacks. Nonetheless, liberal media will not bother to educate you on daily basis about Hispanics and Asians. They will educate you only when something really bad happens on Asians or when there is some election going on.

Some of the reasons why this happens might be that Hispanics and Asians are considered newcomers, Hispanics might be considered a threat to American culture as well (for blacks you can't say that), and also Hispanics and Asians seems to be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, whereas blacks are predominantly Democrats (they are definitely an electoral power to consider).

To conclude, much of the racial debate in the US is politically motivated. In 2016 this country spent 6 billions for electoral campaigns only, and a lot of that money went to conservative and liberal media. The obsession of liberals with identity politics is not going to be beneficial in the future. Hispanics and Asians are not buying that (they don't seem to want to be labelled as minorities). Blacks are buying it and you have blacks leaders and Democrats behaving like advocacy groups, instead of pushing for other things: like better elementary education for all, better mental care, war on political corruption, etc. If people keep going on with the mentality that they should be treated specially because of their identity and they should be protected by Democrats and advocacy groups, it is a matter of time when they see their position getting even worse, since demographics are working against whites and blacks in this country. The 35% of people born in CA and NY have immigrant mothers and when these children will grow up, I guess they will not care too much about the colonial past of the US or about civil rights movement. They will have so many other things to worry about in the near future and they will mostly focus on having things done than on protecting all kinds of identities, histories and cultures.

Responsibility is taken (up voluntarily by the individual), not imposed (through governmental threat of violence). — Tzeentch

You know that’s silly. If you actually believed that, I could go to where you live and take all your liberty by force, make you my slave, and because you’re philosophically opposed to forcing others to be responsible or whatever your hands would be self-tied and you would be a compliant slave.

So what’s your address?

You know that’s silly. If you actually believed that, I could go to where you live and take all your liberty by force, make you my slave, and because you’re philosophically opposed to forcing others to be responsible or whatever your hands would be self-tied and you would be a compliant slave. — praxis

To stop someone from assaulting another is not a matter of "forcing someone to be responsible". What kind of mental gymnastics is that?

Enslaving people has nothing to do with responsibility?

No.

Then you are opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation?

What kind of a ridiculous question is that? You want a normal conversation or what?

The Emancipation Proclamation and the civil war is an instance of responsibility being imposed by force isn’t it?

Responsibility can't be imposed by force. That's just coercion.

I have been 15 years in the US and I don't remember a single day when liberal media did not provide some info about black people. You can search CNN at the time you read my comment, if you don't trust me. There definitely will be something about black people somewhere (it has been like that the last 15 years, and the odds are too small that it will not be the same at the time you read my comment). It's like they are trying to educate people all the time about accepting blacks, and definitely they keep making it one major political issue. — Eros1982

:lol: Ironic.

That suggest that you believe the Southern slave owners were being responsible in the way they conducted their businesses.

What if a business dumped toxic chemicals into a nearby river in order to avoid the cost of proper disposal and the pollution had a negative effect on the environment and the health of nearby residents, would that be responsible or irresponsible?

The Emancipation Proclamation and the civil war is an instance of responsibility being imposed by force isn’t it? — praxis

How so?

That suggest that you believe the Southern slave owners were being responsible in the way they conducted their businesses. — praxis

It doesn't suggest that at all.

What if a business dumped toxic chemicals into a nearby river in order to avoid the cost of proper disposal and the pollution had a negative effect on the environment and the health of nearby residents, would that be responsible or irresponsible? — praxis

That would be irresponsible.

That would be irresponsible. — Tzeentch

So you feel that is their right? What about the rights of the nearby residents who are getting poisoned? They can leave? Or they can legally sue the industry? You have to admit it wouldn’t be a fair fight if the residents were poor.

It seems like it comes down to you favoring those with wealth and power. It does make sense to align yourself with wealth and power in a self interested sort of way.

You're beating about the bush.

If you're in favor of using coercion in order to make people change their behavior that's fine. But don't sugar coat it by making appeals to 'responsibility'. As I said, responsibility can only be taken up voluntarily. "Imposing responsibility" is just a euphemism for coercion.