Over on SLOP

[Brant Gaede]

Doug B: "White women are being raped in mass by blacks...."

--Brant

he's "not arguing for white pride"

[Reidy]

That's surprising; not many blacks are Catholic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe time for Hollywood to consider a new version of The Birth of a Nation?

The Birth of a Nation (originally called The Clansman) is a 1915 silent drama film directed by D. W. Griffith and based on the novel and play The Clansman, both by Thomas Dixon, Jr.

. . .

The film was a commercial success, but was highly controversial owing to its portrayal of African American men (played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive towards white women, and the portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan (whose original founding is dramatized) as a heroic force.

Maybe the Slopper could submit a pitch or a spec screenplay to the Tinsel-Town brass?

Granted, The Birth of a Nation was Woodrow Wilson's favorite film, but that can be downplayed in the modern version...

Michael

[Mark]

It’s easy to make fun of out of context hyperbole, but fact is ...

Consider "non-acquaintance" violent crime, that is, violent crime where previously the perpetrator and victim had not met. Then very probably - as in about 90% - the perpetrator was non-white.

The violent crimes include criminal rape, and most of the victims (even percentage-wise) are white. Ha, ha, ha. Makes your sides split.

[Brant Gaede]

The thread is not about crime, which is not funny, but about race-mongering statements on a purported Objectivist site. Blacks suffer terribly from black on black crime of all sorts. I do suspect that blacks are considerably less likely to report rape to the police than whites. If whites hadn't given blacks the welfare state, starting with the 1960s' Great Society, and draconian drug laws, black crime wouldn't be much worse than white crime today. If whites hadn't given America Medicare, Medicare wouldn't be threatening to eat America alive in the near future. If whites hadn't given America war after war . . .

--Brant

damn whites!--damn 'em to hell!

[Selene]

It’s easy to make fun of out of context hyperbole, but fact is ...

Consider "non-acquaintance" violent crime, that is, violent crime where previously the perpetrator and victim had not met. Then very probably - as in about 90% - the perpetrator was non-white.

The violent crimes include criminal rape, and most of the victims (even percentage-wise) are white. Ha, ha, ha. Makes your sides split.

You do have a source for this statement...correct?

A...

[caroljane]

Over on SLOP, apparently loyalty oaths are now required to be posted for the record. Reasonably sane Damien just said an adieu with a ringing tribute to the webmaster.

I do not know the Moellor story, what was the climax?

[Brant Gaede]

Over on SLOP, apparently loyalty oaths are now required to be posted for the record. Reasonably sane Damien just said an adieu with a ringing tribute to the webmaster.

I do not know the Moellor story, what was the climax?

Last I knew it simply died down because LP stopped replying which is a simple and so far only effective way to stop Moellor. Like I said before--that is, before the acrimonious thread died down.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Over on SLOP, apparently loyalty oaths are now required to be posted for the record. Reasonably sane Damien just said an adieu with a ringing tribute to the webmaster.

I do not know the Moellor story, what was the climax?

Last I knew it simply died down because LP stopped replying which is a simple and so far only effective way to stop Moellor. Like I said before--that is, before the acrimonious thread died down.

Hmmmmm. It makes me wonder if the 'dying down' of the acrimonious thread is the price paid for hypocrisy. Because of the dwindling crowd and the shrinking front bench of players, it does not make sense for Lindsay to beat his friendship to death in public. He would lose a literate voice and further seal his reputation as a bile duct on the internets.

In this case, though, he saves Moeller for SOLO, but Moeller does not presently post. What a deal.

[Serapis Bey]

Brant says:

"The thread is not about crime, which is not funny, but about race-mongering statements on a purported Objectivist site."

Race-mongering? OK.

"Blacks suffer terribly from black on black crime of all sorts."

Are you implying blacks are more prone to crime? Are you race-mongering?

"If whites hadn't given blacks the welfare state, starting with the 1960s' Great Society, and draconian drug laws, black crime wouldn't be much worse than white crime today."

My understanding is that the aim of the Great Society was to assist ALL people mired in poverty, regardless of race. Why would Great Society programs disproportionately affect blacks?

Refreshing my memory at Wiki, it does seem the Great Society had specific policies aimed at blacks:

"Four civil rights acts were passed, including three laws in the first two years of Johnson's presidency. The Civil Rights Act of 1964[10] forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting. It suspended use of literacy or other voter-qualification tests that had sometimes served to keep African-Americans off voting lists and provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes. It also reinforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964[10] by authorizing the appointment of federal voting examiners in areas that did not meet voter-participation requirements. The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned housing discrimination and extended constitutional protections to Native Americans on reservations."

Forbidding job discrimination. Assuring minority voting registration. Revision of immigration law. Banning housing discrimination. I don't quite see how any of this would account for the vastly disproportionate black crime rate.

Portland seems like a pretty nice place to live. I don't recall how well their policies abide by Objectivist principles of limited government, however.

[Serapis Bey]

Selene asks:

"You do have a source for this statement...correct?"

Mark may have overstated his case. He didn't specify what area of the country or what time period he was referring to. A quick google search turned this up -- stats for NY in 2011:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57c_1336487670

The thing to remember with these sorts of stats is the relative percentages of the population demographics. For example, white victims at 8% means vastly different things depending on whether the proportion of whites in the total area is 80% vs. 20%.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant says:

"The thread is not about crime, which is not funny, but about race-mongering statements on a purported Objectivist site."

Race-mongering? OK.

"Blacks suffer terribly from black on black crime of all sorts."

Are you implying blacks are more prone to crime? Are you race-mongering?

"If whites hadn't given blacks the welfare state, starting with the 1960s' Great Society, and draconian drug laws, black crime wouldn't be much worse than white crime today."

My understanding is that the aim of the Great Society was to assist ALL people mired in poverty, regardless of race. Why would Great Society programs disproportionately affect blacks?

Race mongering doesn't mean factual statements that can be used for that are being used for that. Purported aims of a welfare state aren't necessarily the actual aims and/or consequences. The main reason the Great Society "programs disproportionately affect[ed] blacks" is they were disproportionately poor because of racism and antecedent slavery giving them collectively real reasons to believe they were victims deserving extra help and compensation. The problem with being a victim, whether you have a choice to be one or not, is disempowerment. And what else does the welfare state do? It denies men their role in the family unit breaking up families or preventing them from forming.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I don't know the political leanings of Serapis Bey, but I do know that Progressives constantly talk about the dog whistle of racism embedded in certain statements and images.

It's very easy to see it in a statement like "White women are being raped in mass by blacks...."

But before I get that that, here's a question. Why only white women? Do blacks not rape black women, too? They don't rape Hispanics? Orientals?

(OK, enough of me being a smart-ass. )

The real issue starts with the fact that this sentence was not written for a black audience. The SLOP audience is mostly Caucasian.

But even still, I don't believe the knucklehead who wrote that pearl of wisdom is a racist. I think he is just being belligerent against PC language and, in his mind, heroically striking a stinging blow for freedom of speech.

The problem is he doesn't know what the hell he is doing.

Imagine a person who believes the Second Amendment is under attack, and to show just how serious he is, he's gonna exercise it. That'll show folks he means bizness. And he needs some drama to jazz it up. So he picks up a high caliber automatic assault rifle and tries to shoot it by casually dangling it in one hand like he believes a gunslinger did in the Old West.

Whatever else may happen, you better not be near when the crap hits the fan.

The knucklehead to me is like that. He's just shooting all over the damn place, including his own foot, and doesn't even believe in the power of words or images. He's just on a rant because he wants to posture like a macho--nobody's gonna tell me what to do, goll-dammit.

Like it or not, the Uncontrollable Oversexed Black Stud is an archetype in our culture. It is one of the few places where I give it to Progressives in their dog whistle theory.

In fact, they knew how to use it well. They blew on that whistle as hard as they could to take Herman Cain out of the running for President. And it worked with deadly accuracy.

Just like a high caliber automatic assault rifle does in the right hands.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I really think he's something of a racist. It's of the kind you can think your way out of for it's not deeply ingrained. What is deeply ingrained is the pure anti-intellectualism of the non-thinker who thinks he's a thinker. He's more a collectivist than an individualist and complains that Objectivists--and Objectivism--aren't dancing to his tune. He also knows nothing about war and killing people, but keeps pumping out war crap. SLOP had quite a thing going with that over six years ago that drove me out and over here. When that died down I went back tentatively, mostly to keep tabs on the place. Now, thanks to Doug, I'm done gone posting there like forever. Both SLOP and Rebirth of Reason are slo-mo evaporating because of the respective deficiencies of each owner driving people away or rending them out. I actually prefer nasty LP to passionless Joe Rowlands although I prefer to prefer neither to anything else.

--Brant

[Serapis Bey]

MSK:

"I do know that Progressives constantly talk about the dog whistle of racism embedded in certain statements and images.

It's very easy to see it in a statement like "White women are being raped in mass by blacks...."

Notwithstanding the allusion to Catholicism, that statement is not far from the truth. Blacks commit crime at something like 8 times the white rate. Yet the media focuses solely on white on black crime, while giving short shrift to phenomena like the black "flash mobs" of late. If it weren't for the internet, all of it would be swept down the memory hole.

As far as rape, the same lopsided proportions are seen there as well:

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/rape.htm

I don't know about "Uncontrollable Oversexed Black Studs" but stereotypes do not arise mysteriously out of thin air -- there is usually a grain or two of truth to their origin.

Look, we can debate the relative merits of publicizing these factoids. My beef with Objectivism in particular, Libertarianism in general, and Progressives even more generally, is the utopianism and idealism which often blinds people to reality. That should be an indictment of a philosophy which espouses the value of reality and reason. It is throwing out good old fashioned horsesense in favor of High Minded Principle. An overemphasis on assuming all people are potential Rational Actors is utterly naive. There are patterns in nature, and disregarding such patterns for the sake of philosophical purity only serves one's ego.

I'm thinking here of the Progressive/Objectivist who figures that because not ALL blacks are criminals, he won't be like those REDNECK BIGOTS, and therefore feels blissfully free to stroll through downtown at night, thinking nothing of the three "youths" in hooded sweatshirts approaching him and his date. The result of such smug naivete often speaks for itself. No different than the feminists at "Slut Walks" who think getting shitfaced drunk and dressing like a hooker should have no bearing on their being sexually assaulted. Yeah, in an ideal world maybe. Shit in one hand, Should in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Anyone familiar with the Amanda Kijera rape? This is what fidelity to atomistic individualism and hopeful idealism leads you to:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/23/amanda-kijera-liberal-human-rights-activist-raped-in-haiti/

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/anti-racist-idiot-goes-to-haiti-gets-raped-and-is-thankful-for-the-experience/

I have to wonder if any of the mental contortions Amanda extruded from her brain resonate with Brant on some level?

[KacyRay]

I'm thinking here of the Progressive/Objectivist who figures that

because not ALL blacks are criminals, he won't be like those REDNECK

BIGOTS, and therefore feels blissfully free to stroll through downtown

at night, thinking nothing of the three "youths" in hooded sweatshirts

approaching him and his date.

What does "three youths in hooded sweatshirts" who are hanging in downtown at night have to do with black people being dangerous?

Oh... you meant three BLACK youths? That's right... I must've forgotten for a moment that three white youths in hooded sweatshirts lurking downtown at night would be perfctly safe. Three Asians... even safer... probably just out there to help protect naive progressives from all those black guys. Cause that's what white guys in hooded sweatshirts in downtown at night do.

[Brant Gaede]

I have to wonder if any of the mental contortions Amanda extruded from her brain resonate with Brant on some level?

Is this is a question or a smear?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... that statement is not far from the truth. Blacks commit crime at something like 8 times the white rate.

SB,

That is the delivery mechanism for the awful stuff to get in.

That's the way it works.

Some truth. Some exclusion of context. Allusion to emotionally loaded images.

Bingo.

Infection.

The Knucklehead's problem is that he has no personal payoff or even cause to advance other than a macho posture.

There's a guy who came up with a system to put these kinds of messages together. You might be interested in looking at it: Media Virus! Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture by Douglas Rushkoff.

The approach Rushkoff used was from a media slant, but his system works for any agenda, even racism or PC language. Basically, you need the kernel hidden message, the viral shell to hide it and replicate, and a syringe to infect people. (These are metaphors, of course.) But clarity is not the point. On the contrary. Here's a direct quote that is pertinent (pp. 22-23):

Rather than persuading the public through intellectual argument, public relations experts seek only to oversimplify issues and evoke an emotional response from the spectators.

Notwithstanding that Mr. Knucklehead is anything but a "public relations expert," all he tried to do was oversimplify in order to get an emotional response. Maybe get some attention by getting people riled at him.

If you want to go deeper than just a virus and almost assure the spread of a message, there's a more elaborate way of doing it, but you have to tell stories and have some brains. A guy named Jonah Sachs gives a step-by-step formula for creating persuasive viral campaigns in a book called Winning the Story Wars: Why Those Who Tell (and Live) the Best Stories Will Rule the Future. He does them himself--one after another.

Sachs comes from a Progressive slant, and he believes the hidden agenda should be uplifting things (selectively chosen from the top of Maslow's pyramid with a Progressive spin), but his system doesn't know that. It works--and works well--irrespective of the message. You can do it easily with pro-freedom messages. But like I said, you have to have brains to pull it off.

So what to do about The Knucklehead? Ayn Rand, through her fictional propaganda maven, Ellsworth Toohey, said:

Don't bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.

That's why I believe it is foolish to try to make sense of The Knucklehead's argument qua argument. All you'll do is spin in circles on the seas of superfluous details.

I find it far more interesting to dive in and see what his effusion of floating enlightened insight standing on its head accomplishes--including the how and the why.

Now for the letdown. Pfffffff...

In his case, all it does is stir up crap over nothing, both on the surface and underneath. Yelling and little else.

No real rational argument. No persuasion through a hidden agenda. No evil is destroyed. No gain is to be had anywhere except to his vanity and to those who like entertainment of the professional wrestling sort.

Like I said, he doesn't know what the hell he is doing. And thank goodness for small blessings. A weapon like this--like what he tried to pull off--is not for children.

It's a wicked little sucker when the hidden message is bad or confused.

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

Honest question, Brant, albeit spiced with frustration.

Amanda excused her rapist with leftist boilerplate about the white patriarchy. In her mind, her rapist can't be held responsible, since he was acting out his anger due to being held down by The Man. If such thoughts stayed in her mind, I would have no problem with it. If that's her way of coping with the trauma, hey, more power to her. But I have a problem when such nonsense filters out from intellectuals and spreads through the culture to become The Narrative that everyone "just knows" is true, particularly when it informs public policy.

It's this narrative I have a beef with, and I don't dislike it any less when I encounter it among Objectivists. The reason I called you out is because your statements up thread were not entirely dissimilar to the excuses made by Amanda, I.e., blacks are more violent because of the legacy of slavery, or because they are poor, etc.

Was just trying to smoke you out.

[Serapis Bey]

Kacy:

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody White and feel relieved.

-- Jesse Jackson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Was just trying to smoke you out.

Hell and damnation. I just wrote a serious post to you.

Preaching?

Intimidation and baiting?

Dayaamm!

Are you a preacher?

Are you on a crusade to explain to the Little OL People the One True Path and try to make examples of The Hypocrites Who Would Be Scapegoats?

Bah...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Honest question, Brant, albeit spiced with frustration.

Amanda excused her rapist with leftist boilerplate about the white patriarchy. In her mind, her rapist can't be held responsible, since he was acting out his anger due to being held down by The Man. If such thoughts stayed in her mind, I would have no problem with it. If that's her way of coping with the trauma, hey, more power to her. But I have a problem when such nonsense filters out from intellectuals and spreads through the culture to become The Narrative that everyone "just knows" is true, particularly when it informs public policy.

It's this narrative I have a beef with, and I don't dislike it any less when I encounter it among Objectivists. The reason I called you out is because your statements up thread were not entirely dissimilar to the excuses made by Amanda, I.e., blacks are more violent because of the legacy of slavery, or because they are poor, etc.

Was just trying to smoke you out.

You failed. Next time please give me some respect, not because I deserve it but for starters.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

You failed. Next time please give me some respect, not because I deserve it but for starters.

--Brant

In Septicpiss Bay's defense, he is new here, and newbies to a site like this tend to be either a bit over-aggressive and rude, or sickeningly polite and boring as hell. I prefer to see the aggressive type. They at least bring some energy to the site rather than drain it.

J

[KacyRay]

In Septicpiss Bay's defense

Childish.

It's this narrative I have a beef with, and I don't dislike it any less when I encounter it among Objectivists. The reason I called you out is because your statements up thread were not entirely dissimilar to the excuses made by Amanda, I.e., blacks are more violent because of the legacy of slavery, or because they are poor, etc.

Blacks aren't more violent. Thugs are more violent.

And before you start telling me that blacks are more likely to be thugs, I'd suggest you look around the world and not just in Detroit.

Dude, just come out and say it - you believe that blacks possess some inherant more destitution. Don't be afraid - just own it. Don't softball us. You believe there's something in their genetic makeup that gives them a propensity toward violence and crime. Come on, you can say it.

Own up to it and offer your evidence. At least that way we can weight the evidence and have a real conversation about it, without all the innuendo.

[Brant Gaede]

It's time to reboot.

--Brant

the parallel parking principle