Recommended Posts

The article Michael posted is interesting. The writer got a lot wrong, but I do think basketball as a rising cultural force is notable. There is definitely something there.

 

I don't think it's so much about the sport itself as it is about the makeup of the athletes that makes it such a phenomenon. It's the leftist approved representation of the black male. And even if you see something that's unapproved, the commentators can tell you what you really saw.

 

I just had a thought about how opposite two of the forces at play in the whole racial movement are; I'll use the case of Ahmaud Arbery as an example. On one end of the spectrum you have black people with a heavy in group preference stating publicly that Ahmaud was just jogging and that he was just looking around that house to... uh... appreciate the construction work. Then on the same side you have white people that are so white they actually believe the bullshit. Now anyone with any connection to reality can see what was happening.... he was staking out the house. But white-hating blacks and the naive ultra-white liberals are on the same side, even though they're diametrically opposite, and they both support the same narrative.

 

I think this has something to do with the rise in popularity of basketball, too. It's partly to do with having a facade of black America that the white liberal can be comfortable with, like Lebron saying of Trump's "locker room" comment, "We don't talk like that in the locker room." How white do you have to be to actually believe that? And I don't mean to use "white" pejoratively, only that the type of people I mean to degrade are those who would take offense to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

YES, very dangerous.  Likewise, even more so, in Europe. (And, as I've said, an important ChiCom long-term goal of Covid is accelerating their power hold on Europe.) I’ll recommend a book to Merl

Merlin, So? Nobody here has claimed that, either. Michael

Merlin, Vladimir Lenin used to call people who argued like this "useful idiots." I'm not saying you are an idiot and I don't believe you are, but you are putting a smiley face on the Marxist

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But I do think Marxism is as dangerous as all get out

 

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

YES, very dangerous.  Likewise, even more so, in Europe. (And, as I've said, an important ChiCom long-term goal of Covid is accelerating their power hold on Europe.)

I’ll recommend a book to Merlin, who seems not to get the Marxist undergirding and deliberate employment of gender, gay, and race studies and "empowerment."

Nowhere have I said Marxism isn't dangerous.

However, do you mean that the root of all the present danger (100%) is only Marxism? It is not even Neo-Marxism; only Marxism? None of it is critical race theory, postmodernism; only Marxism?

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” ― H. L. Mencken

You don’t get it. All social class divisions are not based on Marxism. Ideas of social class divisions predated Marx. Marx based class divisions on only economic factors. Social class divisions based on gender identity, sexual preference, or race are not part of Marxism. Ideas about social class divisions in more recent years include some from critical race theory and postmodernism – for example, the denial of real truth because power is all that matters.

I recommend this to you, especially these: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/complex-relationship-between-marxism-wokeness/

Nobody here has shown a shred of evidence – only blusterous non sequiturs – that the minds of NBA players and other NBA people who support ‘black lives matter’ is based solely on Marxism. NBA players aren’t even economically oppressed. Being “woke” does not equal being a Marxist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, merjet said:

Nobody here has shown a shred of evidence – only blusterous non sequiturs – that the minds of NBA players and other NBA people who support ‘black lives matter’ is based solely on Marxism.

Merlin,

So?

Nobody here has claimed that, either.

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tmj said:

Civilians chasing down and killing a suspected burglar and then not being prosecuted has what to do with basketball ?

The event and the sport are not what I'm talking about, it's how the (white) public views black people. They can't tell the difference between a black criminal and a productive/peaceful black citizen. Basketball has become the main plinth displaying Disney approved blackness. Basketball fans also talk about how there is a new phenomenon of "flopping" in the NBA that was never there. Drawing fouls and dramatically falling to the ground is now part of the strategy (playing the victim). The connection is about how the media exploits the whiteness of liberals, in that they see blacks as a monolith, and tries to control the image of that monolith. Then when the white liberals see a video of a black person committing a crime, they can't see what's happening. Meanwhile black people, who don't see themselves as a monolith, can see what's happening, and sometimes purport the same lie as the media: "We're all the same, and we're always the victim." ("He could have been my son." - Obama)

 

I'm not saying I have a full analyses of what's going on, but I do see that there is some cultural significance in the rise in popularity of basketball, as well as ties to other changes we are seeing around us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dg wrote, “The event and the sport are not what I'm talking about, it's how the (white) public views black people.

Another interesting aspect of racism and “discrimination” is how police officers of all races view the “on the job” differences in races. They know that per capita, blacks are four times more likely to commit crimes than whites. Per capita, black incarceration rates are much greater and it may be more difficult for a police officer to peacefully arrest a black person. “Beat officers” know this from daily contacts with citizens of all races.

So . . .  should police officers view black people differently to avoid being seen as racist? I would not ask them to forget about their learned experience or their gut feelings. Police officers will discuss their shifts and days with other officers and tell them their views. I would simply insist that the police follow the same arrest protocols regardless of the race of the perpetrator.         

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

I would not ask them to forget about their learned experience or their gut feelings. Police officers will discuss their shifts and days with other officers and tell them their views.

This is it. They have experience with black people, and they are being held to a standard of anti-racism by people who don't have the same experience. And by that I don't mean that anti-racists don't have experience with black people, but I think their experience is typically with the woke/"educated" blacks who are generally middle class or above and feel something similar to white guilt (guilt mixed with wanting to belong to the group of victims they share a skin tone with).

Quote

I would simply insist that the police follow the same arrest protocols regardless of the race of the perpetrator.        

This is tricky. I have heard that at least one study has shown that police get physically aggressive more often/quicker with black/Latino suspects. Now perhaps they are acting proactively to avoid escalation from the suspect (to make sure they do not fail the--I don't know the scientific term, but--bitch test). So what's the solution in the case that the extra aggression is actually beneficial? Do they start to increase aggression against other races??

Link to post
Share on other sites

D

I don’t think it’s a media manipulation of the ‘whiteness’ of liberals, I think it’s manipulating the collectivism of liberal/leftist culture.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tmj said:

D

I don’t think it’s a media manipulation of the ‘whiteness’ of liberals, I think it’s manipulating the collectivism of liberal/leftist culture.

I said "exploit," not "manipulate." But even if you're right about the collectivism part, it doesn't negate what I observe in how the NBA is trying to sell a Disney version of blackness: these aren't just athletes, they're role models (even when they're clearly not).

 

And notice when this started to happen? About the time those kids who learned about black people from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air grew up (had money).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the non Disney version of ‘black people’ and their ness? I assume you mean this Disney version is the incorrect way to know black people, what’s the truth about blacks?

What’s the Disney version of whites or isn’t there one or a need for it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dg wrote: “And notice when this started to happen? About the time those kids who learned about black people from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air grew up (had money).

Well said. I think that portrayals that do not face, and mirror reality can be harmful to the culture and harmful to law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "anti-racism", it's all simple racism now. You are defined by your group - period. Uplifting or pandering to a person's type, group or tribe - by cause of their "type" - is as much anti-individualist and -phobic, as belittling and negating them because of their type. (While granted the latter is nastier in appearance, they are identical in premises and consequences). The soft bigotry of low expectations, as it's said, is a subtler and insidious racism. It follows we'll have competing groups, and sacrifices of one to another (altruism-collectivism) and a break down in society. There's why the Leftists are now the major racists/bigots, and who can only see 'tribes', 'victims' to invent, and in 'empathy' feel good about themselves in a moment of pseudo self-esteem. When they ran out of victims to feed off, because of the evident success of free-er societies, they just turned to history and resurrected past victims. For the mostly decent innocents caught in the middle, there's white guilt and lately black guilt - for some, shown by displays of public "solidarity" - for the sin of having individually done better than their fellows, also by that mystical and mythical "group".

The discourse has been dominated by the noisy crowd to the degree that many an individual fears to assert themselves and counter collectivism with individualism without being shot down, receive threats, probably lose their incomes and reputation in the name of this new racism and -phobia. Control the discourse you have control of minds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 7:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Merlin,

So?

Nobody here has claimed that, either.

LOL. It is one of your blusterous non sequiturs, to wit:

"But so long as professional basketball keeps promoting the virtue of institutional racism as one of its main marketing messages, it will keep losing money and audience. Not just any old kind of institutional racism, either. Marxist institutional racism (BLM).

I predict it will not be too long before the Marxist institutional racism promoted by professional basketball players and teams disappears from pro basketball courts and marketing" (link).

To readers: Ask yourself why MSK felt a need to include “Marxist” in the above? Did it clarify or confuse? Was it to slur NBA people? Something else?

When I proffered critical race theory and postmodernism as non-Marxist elements of Black Lives Matter ideas here, MSK’s reply swept both under the rug while using “Marxis_” 8 times.

Why did MSK post that mostly garbage article by Marxist Bertell Ollman if it wasn’t to slur NBA players as Marxists or dupes of Marxists? Which one matters little provided the gullible swallow MSK’s labeling.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, merjet said:

When I proffered critical race theory and postmodernism as non-Marxist elements of Black Lives Matter ideas here, MSK’s reply swept both under the rug while using “Marxis_” 8 times.

Merlin,

Your feelings are hurt?

That's where all this is coming from?

Good Lord...

I'm going to think on this.

If your feelings really are hurt, I want to try to be wise. God knows what the wise path is, but I'll think on it. I have no wish to cause pain to the innocent. In fact, I abhor that.

If this is just vanity, though, you're going to have to deal with me as I am. And I don't do submission well. I already piss off the vain by default. When I put my mind to it, vain people tend to melt down and do crazy nasty shit. And, at root, it's all bullshit.

This forum has records and records and records of this happening with several people. (The most colorful one was probably the crazy lady. She was vain, but she was not boring... :) )

Stay tuned... I really am thinking about this dispassionately... And I want to take more than a day, maybe a lot more. I want to get this right.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tmj said:

What’s the non Disney version of ‘black people’ and their ness? I assume you mean this Disney version is the incorrect way to know black people, what’s the truth about blacks?

What’s the Disney version of whites or isn’t there one or a need for it ?

There are non-Disney versions in older popular culture, at different times. But we're talking about a facade created by the media that only works if the consumer views black people as a cohesive collective. The problem is not so much about the qualities of the facade, but the acceptance of a media made stereotype. Some decades ago the stereotype was much different, involving laziness and criminality--not Disney-like.

 

The reason we don't have a stereotype for white people is because white people are the majority. The tendency to group people together comes from ignorance (it's crude pattern recognition). So black people who grew up in a black community may have a stereotypical view of white people, but that would obviously be much less common and not as effective for the media to try to exploit. And a white stereotype wouldn't be Disneyfied, because the purpose of doing that is to sell something--the small percentage of blacks who would be susceptible to a white stereotype would not be a corporation's target demo. But an example of a past Disneyfied, white stereotype might be Leave it to Beaver: white people would see the disconnect from reality, but some black people probably accepted the Cleavers as a facade for their monolith of whites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peter said:

Dg wrote: “And notice when this started to happen? About the time those kids who learned about black people from Fresh Prince of Bel-Air grew up (had money).

Well said. I think that portrayals that do not face, and mirror reality can be harmful to the culture and harmful to law enforcement.

I agree. "Portrayals" are dangerous in general. If the portrayal matches your limited personal experience, you will be doubly confident that you know reality. I think this is what we have now with the white BLM supporters. If the portrayal fills a vacancy of personal experience, that's bad too. And finally if the portrayal contradicts one's personal experience, you have alienation and gas-lighting. This is what's happening with the opponents of BLM/supporters of the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merjet said:

"But so long as professional basketball keeps promoting the virtue of institutional racism as one of its main marketing messages, it will keep losing money and audience. Not just any old kind of institutional racism, either. Marxist institutional racism (BLM).

I predict it will not be too long before the Marxist institutional racism promoted by professional basketball players and teams disappears from pro basketball courts and marketing" (link).

To readers: Ask yourself why MSK felt a need to include “Marxist” in the above? Did it clarify or confuse? Was it to slur NBA people? Something else?

I think he's connecting the dots. If it is not Marxism itself, it is the foundation of Marxism that ties these things together; and they are tied together. Every leftist objective packages in every other leftist objective: you can't go down the leftist path to solving climate change without eventually necessitating new gender pronouns and mandating Christian bakeries cater gay weddings.

 

I think qualifying the type of institutional racism as Marxist is not superfluous or misleading, because the definition of institutional racism does not require a Marxist worldview. Institutional racism exists, just like racism exists, but it's hard to pinpoint and quantify. The leftist methods for measuring those things are designed to blow them way out of proportion, so that their effects accord with (roughly) Marxist theory. They don't have to be proclaimed Marxists, either, to have their worldview shaped by Marxism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

The leftist methods for measuring those things are designed to blow them way out of proportion, so that their effects accord with (roughly) Marxist theory. They don't have to be proclaimed Marxists, either, to have their worldview shaped by Marxism.

Sounds familiar:

"You might claim—as most people do—that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? “Don’t be so sure—nobody can be certain of anything.” You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” You got that from Plato. Or: “That was a rotten thing to do, but it’s only human, nobody is perfect in this world.” You got it from Augustine. Or: “It may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” You got it from William James. Or: “I couldn’t help it! Nobody can help anything he does.” You got it from Hegel. Or: “I can’t prove it, but I feel that it’s true.” You got itfrom Kant. Or: “It’s logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality.” You got it from Kant. Or: “It’s evil, because it’s selfish.” You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: “Act first, think afterward”? They got it from John Dewey. Some people might answer: “Sure, I’ve said those things at different times, but I don’t have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it’s not true today.” They got it from Hegel. They might say: “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: “But can’t one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?” They got it from Richard Nixon—who got it from William James. Now ask yourself: if you are not interested in abstract ideas, why do you (and all men) feel compelled to use them?"

...

"Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it—intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved—as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but hatred for America."

Rand, Ayn, "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, merjet said:

 I don't agree. Conversely, America is NON-racist. It's predominantly individualist. To be actively anti-racist is still to be aware of collective differences and make allowances. Which is why most Americans don't know how to deal with the new racialism, masquerading as "anti-racist", espoused by a minority to divide the nation. They don't recognize anti-racism, or the threat it poses, since non-racism is what they know and live by..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, merjet said:

The video is very good, but slavery is not 100% relevant to my post.  Bear in mind that slavery and racism are not always equal bedfellows. Where there was systemic racism like South Africa, there wasn't slavery. Which went roughly for all the African ex-colonies, they tolerated little or no slavery but had racist policies of varying severity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I realized that I've thought about, and heard talked about (by Sam Harris), but not explored in it's implications, is that black people do not know what it's like to not be black. The Woke justification for anti-racism is that white people do not know what it's like to be black, and, of course, the natural retort is that without knowing what it's like to be white (or non-black), how can a black person really know what it's like to be black? That is, what experiences or aspects of their experiences can they attribute to their blackness rather than to their humanness?

 

The implication that I didn't even think of is that with the foundation in Marxism, which some here may dispute, but... whatever... this logical failure is not just a mistake, but a serious "gotcha" liability. Marxism is largely based on Hegel's dialectics, which is largely based on the unity of opposites. The experience of a black person being considered inherently more informative solely based on their skin tone is not only fallacious, it's a fallacy that contradicts the origins of their ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Your feelings are hurt?

I'm going to think on this.

If your feelings really are hurt, ...

If this is just vanity, ...

Take your time. But if you limit yourself to only those two hypotheses, then you will find dead-ends and not get far. Both focus on the messenger rather than the message.

Good luck.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

I think he's connecting the dots.

“Connecting the dots” can be done very poorly at one extreme to very well at the other extreme. On the very poor end are conspiracy theories, which typically have lots of dots and the connections are mostly imagined. On the opposite end are elegant mathematical proofs. There are enough dots – none superfluous – that the proof is not immediately obvious, and the connections are rigorous.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now