The Economist endorses Obama

[Daniel]

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12511171

The presidential election

It's time
Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.


-----

I'd venture to say that the Economist is probably the most respected and unbiased publication on foreign and political affairs today.

[Danical]

-----

I'd venture to say that the Economist is probably the most respected and unbiased publication on foreign and political affairs today.

^

[Keller]

Not surprising that this bastion of communism would support the socialist B. Hussein Obama.

[Keller]

Oh, and the economist is endorsing Obama because of race.

Isn't that right, Rush?

[Drew]

They also endorsed John Kerry, I don't find this surprising.


I read the Economist and I generally agree with their stances (what we would call fiscally conservative, socially liberal) but they usually choose the guy who the British would elect President.

[Danical]

. . . but they usually choose the guy who the British would elect President.

I WONDER WHY?!?!?!1

True story though.

[Keller]

They also endorsed John Kerry.

Good thing we didn't elect THAT schmuck.

[Clove]

It's an interesting endorsement, right off the bat:


For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

The Economist believes Obama has clearly shown that he offers a better chance of restoring America's "self-confidence" (not, by the way "economy") but admits that Obama is a gamble given his inexperience and lack of clarity.

I respect the Economist but this endorsement sounds an awful lot like "if you're going to play Russian roulette, use -this- pistol; it misfires the most."

But it could be the cold medicine talking.

[Gan]

The Economist has always slanted left. That being said, each issue from this summer forward has been pretty detailed about how each candidate's policies have shaped and evolved up to now. So while the endorsement is not surprising, it also has credibility simply because the analysis is thorough.

I may not support the candidate they endorsed but that will not tarnish my respect for the magazine or alter my subscription.

[Daniel]

I may not support the candidate they endorsed but that will not tarnish my respect for the magazine or alter my subscription.

I'm sure they're relieved.

[Gan]

I'm sure they're relieved.

I'm sure relieved that you're sure that they're relieved.

Let me tell you.

[Daniel]

Please do?

[Allereli]

Let me tell you.

Don'cha know

[Gan]

Please do?

:facepalm:

[Tsa`ah]

The Economist has always slanted left.

:insert Scooby Doo shocked questioning sound:

John Kerry, G dub, Clinton, Dole, Reagan, and now Obama. Maybe you should not tilt your head when you read ... should take care of the slant problem.

[nub]

I'm sure they're relieved.

Are you really that much of an ass hole to anyone who disagrees with you politically? I've only been reading these forums for a short time, but no matter the topic, you are an ass hole to someone who disagrees with you politically. Gan just agreed with you there that is was sound, yet you're still being an ass.

[Tsa`ah]

Are you really that much of an ass hole to anyone who disagrees with you politically? I've only been reading these forums for a short time, but no matter the topic, you are an ass hole to someone who disagrees with you politically. Gan just agreed with you there that is was sound, yet you're still being an ass.

Maybe it's just the short time you've been reading. You're starting mid chapter, mid novel ... it doesn't give a very good perspective.

Also, this is an election year and you're reading a political folder ... you really haven't seen much all things considered.

[Gan]

:insert Scooby Doo shocked questioning sound:

John Kerry, G dub, Clinton, Dole, Reagan, and now Obama. Maybe you should not tilt your head when you read ... should take care of the slant problem.

Obviously you dont read the economist.

Take it from someone who's had a subscription for a few years now. They lean left. Not far left, but left none the less.

[Necromancer]

Wow, you guys are scary. The Economist has always been a right leaning publication. It's a well-deserved reputation. Whoever is saying that it is A. unbiased or B. left-leaning needs to get their reality checked.

Their traditionally conservative political ideology (mostly grounded in their staunch support of free markets) is precisely what makes the endorsement of Obama so shocking. This is not a publication that supports any democrat lightly.

[crb]

Obviously you dont read the economist.

Take it from someone who's had a subscription for a few years now. They lean left. Not far left, but left none the less.
They are, or more specifically, they have an internationalist bent.

[Daniel]

Are you really that much of an ass hole to anyone who disagrees with you politically? I've only been reading these forums for a short time, but no matter the topic, you are an ass hole to someone who disagrees with you politically. Gan just agreed with you there that is was sound, yet you're still being an ass.

when was I an asshole to you?

[nub]

when was I an asshole to you?

always :(

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Their traditionally conservative political ideology (mostly grounded in their staunch support of free markets) is precisely what makes the endorsement of Obama so shocking.>>

I'm pretty sure free markets are supported by liberals (notably libertarians), who are neither conservative nor right-wing.

[Tsa`ah]

Liberals and Libertarians are not even remotely the same.

[Bobmuhthol]

Learn to read.

[Tsa`ah]

Learn to read.

Umm ... learn to understand what you post?


I'm pretty sure free markets are supported by liberals (notably libertarians)

You just suggested in that statement that they were one in the same, or one a branch of the other.


, who are neither conservative nor right-wing.

Liberals sure, libertarians .... I'd say are a pretty good example of conservative and right wing. As someone else suggested, they also smoke pot.

[Stanley Burrell]

Why would (rofl) libertarians bare any agenda markedly to the left or the right?

"I don't want the government sustaining any amendments, give me my M-16."

[Necromancer]

Libertarian economic policies (and by extention many of their social policies) are undoubtedly conservative.

Yes, free markets are supported by liberals- to an extent. The Economist is far more pro-free market than most liberals, and notice I said "right leaning" not "rightist".

And libertarians and liberals may agree on some social issues, but they are often for very different reasons. Don't obscure the importance of the process while looking at the goal.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

They are, or more specifically, they have an internationalist bent.

Jesus Christ, I agree with you on something.

[Gan]

Jesus Christ, I agree with you on something.

Wow. You agree with Crb and Gan.

Keep that up and you might get a R-Team ring.

[Stanley Burrell]

Libertarian economic policies (and by extention many of their social policies) are undoubtedly conservative.

Yes, free markets are supported by liberals- to an extent. The Economist is far more pro-free market than most liberals, and notice I said "right leaning" not "rightist".

And libertarians and liberals may agree on some social issues, but they are often for very different reasons. Don't obscure the importance of the process while looking at the goal.

Isn't the idea of there being a Libertarian Party a complete hypocrisy of its very existence? I'm not talking about conjuring globalized prescription drugs and firearms by bending thermodynamic law in order to not support large businesses subsidized by the government, who would be the only possible manufacturers of such commodities existing in the first place... But rather simply voting into office a party whose principles are against government rule as is? C'mon. You can't have a thinking mind and express an opinion without being labeled a hypocrite to somebody, but I mean; seriously though, this sort of pushes the political and illogical envelope to aneurysm-inducing extremes.

[Necromancer]

To be fair, libertarians do believe in government intervention. They just have a much more narrow scope than most as to when it is and is not appropriate. This is why they are overwhelmingly white, middle to upper middle class, and male. They can afford to have the government back out- society already favors them. Everyone else needs the government to intervene precisely to combat that reality.

[Stanley Burrell]

To be fair, libertarians do believe in government intervention. They just have a much more narrow scope than most as to when it is and is not appropriate. This is why they are overwhelmingly white, middle to upper middle class, and male. They can afford to have the government back out- society already favors them. Everyone else needs the government to intervene precisely to combat that reality.

So up until the point that you've accumulated enough capitalistically-hoarded stock provided by our democracy, Libertarianism is only ideal when you've outdone the little guy and/or know how to manipulate the fine art of iceboxes and coal stoves? IMHO, reality would intervene pretty quickly when the citizen's militia turned on itself.

[Tsa`ah]

I don't think you can classify libertarianism as a "rich man's" political belief. Look at militias, hemp hounds, tobacco farmers, many ordinary farmers, moon shiners, boot leggers.

There's nothing wrong with the political view, but to say it's not a conservative view or that it's not a right wing view is kind of absurd. I'm sure there are plenty of left leaning people that classify themselves as libertarian as well ... but it's an odd fit if you ask me.

[Stanley Burrell]

Doesn't boot-legging have its merits sustained through the exact same capitalist gain via every method of distribution, only less threatened by the lawman? I'm pretty sure I know of somewhat liberal goods trades; at least before pot sales evolve into designer drug entities, that have their roots founded in liberal ideology.

I'm sure Boondocks Farmer X and Y doesn't want to hear a sermon on free trade as a means to wealth redistribution of his corn stock. Of course, everyone could be a farmer because there would no regulation into maintaining a silo based on any government-mandated protocol whatsoever.

[Necromancer]

Just because you want the government to stay out of a particular issue doesn't make you libertarian- nor does it embody a libertarian ideal. Libertarians, in their most radical sense, only believe the government should intervene to enforce property rights. And, honestly, much of the libertarian party revolves around this notion. That's precisely what makes it a middle-class/upper-middle class draw. You have to HAVE personal property of value to be drawn to this- and define that as a vital component of your politics.

[Tsa`ah]

Look at it from the perspective of the Constitution outlining what the government can't do to citizens ... and then chuck out every law that potentially over steps that outlook. Yet you want to keep things like bridges, roads ... infrastructure ... but you shouldn't be bothered with it.

[Stanley Burrell]

Just because you want the government to stay out of a particular issue doesn't make you libertarian- nor does it embody a libertarian ideal. Libertarians, in their most radical sense, only believe the government should intervene to enforce property rights. And, honestly, much of the libertarian party revolves around this notion. That's precisely what makes it a middle-class/upper-middle class draw. You have to HAVE personal property of value to be drawn to this- and define that as a vital component of your politics.

I'd find it pretty interesting to see someone of the most poor financial background fighting day-to-day in this country and having the time to dabble in the marked switch to Libertarian (ideals) because they stumbled across any amount of wealth they truly had to break their back for. I still think it's an absurd hypocrisy to have as its own elected party in principle. Or then having to debate between moderate, liberal and conservatives of the Libertarian agenda -- And how closely they had to follow super-specific aspects of its dogma to either not mock what is already known as extreme socialism or capitalism.

[Drew]

That's precisely what makes it a middle-class/upper-middle class draw. You have to HAVE personal property of value to be drawn to this- and define that as a vital component of your politics.


I disagree, I consider myself a Libertarian and a strong property rights advocate but I don't own a house or any property of great value. I just think it's the right thing.

[Necromancer]

Are you white, above the poverty line, and male?

[Drew]

2 out of 3.

[Necromancer]

I rest my case.

[Drew]

I rest my case.

That white males support liberty more than other people?

[875000]

That white males support liberty more than other people?

No, that white males should not be allowed to voice their opinion if it conflicts with liberal orthodoxy. Get with the program, man.

[Necromancer]

No, that a white, straight, middle-class man's very concept of liberty is going to reflect their own subjectivity. (Just as is the case for the rest of us) Throughout modern Western political history, a focus on economics as a principle of freedom or"liberty" has been largely white and male. White, heterosexual men don't have to worry about racial equality (but boy do they get extra points for at least pretending to care), reproductive freedoms, heterosexism, immigration, etc. to the same extent the rest of us do.

A white, middle-class, heterosexual man in this country will never actually understand what the concept of "liberty" means to the rest of the population. Never know what it's like to have your status as a citizen in this country put to popular vote. And, as such, they can afford to be primarily interested in property rights and have nothing to lose by arguing that we need to keep the government's influence on society at a minimum. Because popular vote, the status quo, will always protect their rights and freedoms. The rest of us are not so fortunate in our political positions.

And this is precisely why libertarians are predominantly white, heterosexual, middle-class males. Nothing to lose- everything to gain.

[875000]

No, that a white, straight, middle-class man's very concept of liberty is going to reflect their own subjectivity. (Just as is the case for the rest of us) Throughout modern Western political history, a focus on economics as a principle of freedom or"liberty" has been largely white and male. White, heterosexual men don't have to worry about racial equality (but boy do they get extra points for at least pretending to care), reproductive freedoms, heterosexism, immigration, etc. to the same extent the rest of us do.

A white, middle-class, heterosexual man in this country will never actually understand what the concept of "liberty" means to the rest of the population. Never know what it's like to have your status as a citizen in this country put to popular vote. And, as such, they can afford to be primarily interested in property rights and have nothing to lose by arguing that we need to keep the government's influence on society at a minimum. Because popular vote, the status quo, will always protect their rights and freedoms. The rest of us are not so fortunate in our political positions.

And this is precisely why libertarians are predominantly white, heterosexual, middle-class males. Nothing to lose- everything to gain.

Like I said -- white males should not be allowed to voice their opinion if it conflicts with liberal orthodoxy.

[Necromancer]

Ahh the sound of the North American white, heterosexual, middle-class man feeling threatened in his natural habitat.

[Warriorbird]

One can generalize one's way out of an audience.

[Necromancer]

Sorry if it's hard to hear, but everything I said was factually true. The only odd part is...why is it so difficult to stomach for people who reside largely in the majority? You can talk about how a minority has a different mindset, but somehow if you talk about someone in the majority as having a different mindset...it's a problem, and you're illogical, and you're stereotyping, etc.

And the very question posed there...different from whom? The answer to that, or rather the analysis of that, tells us everything.

[Warriorbird]

You don't get the right to automatically include all members of a subject group in a belief set. You've studied enough philosophy to know that 'social laws' tend to fail... thus the offensiveness... and the similarity to what you are railing against.

[Clove]

You don't get the right to automatically include all members of a subject group in a belief set. You've studied enough philosophy to know that 'social laws' tend to fail... thus the offensiveness... and the similarity to what you are railing against.It's disturbing when you're correct.

[crb]

Libertarian economic policies (and by extention many of their social policies) are undoubtedly conservative.

Yes, free markets are supported by liberals- to an extent. The Economist is far more pro-free market than most liberals, and notice I said "right leaning" not "rightist".

And libertarians and liberals may agree on some social issues, but they are often for very different reasons. Don't obscure the importance of the process while looking at the goal.
Jessica pulled this one on me on OOC as well. Saying libertarians were for gay rights for the wrong reason.

How is because you don't think the government should have any business telling consenting adults what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms the wrong reason?

I don't know... but apparently it is.

I guess the right reason is because heterosexuals can get married? Well... if it is merely equality you want then taking marriage away from heteros would probably help you as well, right? No...

I think my reasons are, indeed, superior. Freedom > equality. Everyone can be equally opressed or equally miserable, afterall. See communism.

[Necromancer]

Jessica pulled this one on me on OOC as well. Saying libertarians were for gay rights for the wrong reason.

How is because you don't think the government should have any business telling consenting adults what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms the wrong reason?

I don't know... but apparently it is.

I guess the right reason is because heterosexuals can get married? Well... if it is merely equality you want then taking marriage away from heteros would probably help you as well, right? No...

I think my reasons are, indeed, superior. Freedom > equality. Everyone can be equally opressed or equally miserable, afterall. See communism.

Congratulations, you just provided perfect evidence for my point.

"Freedom > Equality" Because for you, "equality" would actually mean you'd have to lose some of the privilege you have but do not deserve. For the rest of us, without equality, we'll never truly be free.

And the fact that you can't understand the (not so complicated) nuances of the difference between a political goal and a political process tells me that you're far less thoughtful than you think you are (notice I didn't say "than we think you are")

[crb]

I don't think you can classify libertarianism as a "rich man's" political belief. Look at militias, hemp hounds, tobacco farmers, many ordinary farmers, moon shiners, boot leggers.

There's nothing wrong with the political view, but to say it's not a conservative view or that it's not a right wing view is kind of absurd. I'm sure there are plenty of left leaning people that classify themselves as libertarian as well ... but it's an odd fit if you ask me.
no kidding. Remember that poll where like everyone on the forum called themselves libertarian? Ya right.

Libertarians are liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues, but that simplifies it. We believe in personal liberty above all. So, we're against the government telling us how to run our private lives, which is being liberal, but we're also against the government telling us how to run our businesses, butting into the economy, etc, which is conservative.

We're against government interference.

However, where we differ from liberals, is that we care not about equality of outcome only equality of opportunity. And we do not support government intervention in the name of social engineering. Things like affirmative action. We also don't support unions, being abusive labor monopolies, and we do not support govenment mandates.

To give you an example. Breastfeeding. We support the right for women to be able to breasfeed in public. But if a woman starts breastfeeding in a privately owned store or restaurant and the owner of that business does not like it, we support his right to kick her out. A liberal (aka the ACLU) would merely take that right away from the business owner. And that is why the ACLU isn't actually for freedom but for government enforcement of social ideals.

To sum up, we support personal responsibility. Smoke what you want, but deal with the consequences. Drink all you want, but if you drive and hit someone you're going to jail. Kick that breastfeeding lady out of your store, but if you lose business or she organizes a protest, you brought it on yourself.

[Necromancer]

You don't get the right to automatically include all members of a subject group in a belief set. You've studied enough philosophy to know that 'social laws' tend to fail... thus the offensiveness... and the similarity to what you are railing against.

Actually, the teleology was the exact opposite. I included members of a belief set into a subject group. I then turned around and stated that people in that particular subject group would never have the same subjectivity (intentional repetition) as those in another subject group. There's nothing problematic about that- it's both common sense and real.

And it's that particular social and political reality that white, middle-class, heterosexual men live in that makes them far more likely to choose politics like libertarianism because it presents them with no risks. Whereas to be part of a minority facing life in a country where their peers have biases against them means that "less government intervention" is risky. Because when you pull out the government, you're still stuck with social prejudice, and structural inequality that no non-state actor has both the power AND interest in changing.

[Keller]

we care about only equality of opportunity.

Where there is a clear inequality of opportunity, how would you fix it?

[Necromancer]

They don't. That's the problem. Because that kind of inequality is usually structural, it's sources go far beyond Federal Legislation. Libertarianism has no method to deal with those sources because it willingly chooses to ignore their existence. Hence, why it is a party for people who enjoy majority (normalized) status. Only they can afford such a stance.

Just look at V's explanation of the issues. The party motto may as well be "Libertarianism: It doesn't affect me, so it's not a problem!". The stances on racial justice, gender equality, and sexual liberation make that clear.

[Warriorbird]

While your critique of Libertarianism is clearly well thought out... egregious bullshit is egregious bullshit.


A white, middle-class, heterosexual man in this country will never actually understand what the concept of "liberty" means to the rest of the population.

Those darn middle class white men... clearly incapable of understanding anything. You're gay so you're superior.

I thought being self centered with pseudo-academic justifications was solely the purview of the Cato Institute.

[Necromancer]

It's the hubris of the majority to assume that they will always understand everything. You can sympathize, you can know, but you can't understand until you've been there. You simply do not know what it means to have your fundamental civil rights hanging in the balance of popular vote, and you never will. That's just the reality of the situation, and that's precisely why the subjectivities are different. It's not about superiority or inferiority, it's about simple circumstance. And yes, experiences shape perceptions.

It is nothing short of defensive egoism to try to argue otherwise.

[Warriorbird]

So... because I haven't had my right to marry denied... I don't understand liberty...

...

You're trying to defend an unreasonable statement with a series of partially related more reasonable ones.

[crb]

Where there is a clear inequality of opportunity, how would you fix it?
Though things such as a bill of rights, dictating the rights people can expect from their government.

You cannot, in the end, legislate compassion, or things like that, and that is a slippery slope. But what you need to be sure of is that, in the eyes of the government, all people are giving equal opportunity.

The other thing you can do is to encourage people to be proactive and organize. If a group for instance felt like a private citizen who was a business owner was discriminating against them through refusing to service them in his business. They could organize a protest or a boycott. They could frequent his competitors, or start a competitor to him themselves. Show him how turning away customers and doing something socially distasteful is a bad idea.

What I don't support is government intervention in such situations. For the government to put the proverbial gun to the head to one private citizen for the benefit of another private citizen is both wrong in principle and a slippery slope that can lead to an excess of government power and authority over the lives of it's citizens.

[Ravenstorm]

So... because I haven't had my right to marry denied... I don't understand liberty...

No, what he said is:


You can sympathize, you can know, but you can't understand until you've been there. You simply do not know what it means to have your fundamental civil rights hanging in the balance of popular vote, and you never will.

And honestly, I'd have to agree with him on that particular point. And I'll add that it goes way beyond the right to marry.

[Necromancer]

The mere fact that you boiled it down in that way does nothing but prove my point. The difference in experience is systemic- it pervades every part of life.

As a white man, you've never had to fear for physical violence based purely on your skin color. (And please don't give me the "Black men are scarier than white men, and therefore I am a more likely target (By them- the aggressive, animalistic blacks)" racist reverse racism claim) No one has ever taken a white man's children away for being white, and they never will. You will never have to worry about not being hired because you're black, nor do you have to walk into a new job just praying that none of your fellow employees, let alone your supervisors, has any implicit or explicit bias against people with your skin color. You'll never have to worry that your children are being held back in school, or that their intelligence is being underestimated, because their teachers inherently perceive your child's skin color and possibly their use of african american vernacular as less intelligent than her white peers and their white way of speaking.

You'll never know what it's like to feel anxiety at holding your partner's hand. You'll never feel that you can't, for safety reasons, go to many areas of the country. Most importantly- you'll never have to fear a conservative movement in the US. For a white, middle-class, heterosexual man...your biggest concern is your tax payment for the year. For many of us, those kinds of sweeps involve violence, intimidation, and a reminder of just how tenuous our rights are.

You will never lose fundamental rights related to whom you are because of changing political tides. The rest of us, on the other hand, know all too well that any privileges we enjoy are at the whim of the majority. To pretend like that isn't a reality, or that you could somehow ever understand that is, again, hubris of the most destructive kind.

It's just the way things are. And, hey, if you're feeling offended or diminished in some way by this...we'll happily trade with you.

[Tolwynn]

It's the hubris of the majority to assume that they will always understand everything.

Would the hubris of the minority, then, be the assumption that absolutely nobody else could possibly understand them, in turn?

[Warriorbird]

I quoted his idiotic initial comment, Ravenstorm, refer back. He's since said more reasonable stuff mixed with a complete unwillingness to admit his initial point was stupid.

...and yes, Tolwynn,... the upshot is that Necromancer sounds like every emo kid everywhere.

Necromancer's argument could be carried over into saying you have to have experienced divorce to appreciate marriage. I've been divorced... he hasn't... so he clearly doesn't get it.

If you think 'the white male majority (which isn't quite as overarching as you make it out to be)' doesn't have any problems besides perception you're a fucking idiot... though you'll probably survive a long time in academia (you should definitely go back if you haven't already, Necromancer).

I don't think I understood liberty until I saw post Communist Romania. That's probably my personal watershed moment. According to Necromancer, though, the only way you can appreciate or understand something is not having it.

Maybe he's right... he clearly doesn't understand anybody except hyper-educated gay white male Americans.

[Ravenstorm]

I quoted his idiotic initial comment, Ravenstorm, refer back.

Having read back (just to make certain I didn't miss it the first time), his initial reference to "liberty" was in reply to someone else. He didn't bring it up. Also, his point was that one's idea of just what "liberty" means is affected by one's circumstances.

To one person - a libertarian for instance - liberty means having the least amount of government interference possible. To others, that means oppression by the strongest, be it the strongest physically or the strongest majority.

You can understand liberty but that's your version of it.

(Edited to add that your version isn't necessarily a libertarian one.)

[Necromancer]

Having read back (just to make certain I didn't miss it the first time), his initial reference to "liberty" was in reply to someone else. He didn't bring it up. Also, his point was that one's idea of just what "liberty" means is affected by one's circumstances.

To one person - a libertarian for instance - liberty means having the least amount of government interference possible. To others, that means oppression by the strongest, be it the strongest physically or the strongest majority.

You can understand liberty but that's your version of it.

(Edited to add that your version isn't necessarily a libertarian one.)

Yup. Ravenstorm got my point. Warriorbird, on the other hand, COMPLETELY missed it.

[Faent]

To be fair, libertarians do believe in government intervention. They just have a much more narrow scope than most as to when it is and is not appropriate. This is why they are overwhelmingly white, middle to upper middle class, and male. They can afford to have the government back out- society already favors them. Everyone else needs the government to intervene precisely to combat that reality.

You mean people like you need (beg) the government to intervene (steal) on your behalf? What a miserable creature you must be.

[Faent]

It's the hubris of the majority to assume that they will always understand everything. You can sympathize, you can know, but you can't understand until you've been there. You simply do not know what it means to have your fundamental civil rights hanging in the balance of popular vote, and you never will. That's just the reality of the situation, and that's precisely why the subjectivities are different. It's not about superiority or inferiority, it's about simple circumstance. And yes, experiences shape perceptions. It is nothing short of defensive egoism to try to argue otherwise.

This is idiotic bullshit.

You're wrong, and obviously wrong, but I can't get you to understand why because you're too black to be capable of understanding the reasons. Sucks to be you: mentally handicapped because of your skin color. You're doomed to offer failed arguments which are easily refuted by white experience. And sadly, your blackness prevents you from understanding just how dumb your arguments are. If I *could* explain, I would. But you just can't understand because you're black.

The above argument is bullshit. So is yours.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry. Denying anyone's ability to understand liberty is moronic on the face of the argument.

[Necromancer]

I'm sorry. Denying anyone's ability to understand liberty is moronic on the face of the argument.

I never made that claim. You just said I did. You missed my point.

[Necromancer]

This is idiotic bullshit.

You're wrong, and obviously wrong, but I can't get you to understand why because you're too black to be capable of understanding the reasons. Sucks to be you: mentally handicapped because of your skin color. You're doomed to offer failed arguments which are easily refuted by white experience. And sadly, your blackness prevents you from understanding just how dumb your arguments are. If I *could* explain, I would. But you just can't understand because you're black.

The above argument is bullshit. So is yours.

Holy Crap, you are SO right. You've never actually experienced direct discrimination, but you understand it as well as anyone who has! All hail the white, heterosexual, middle-class mind! It understands everything!

Get over yourself and at least pretend to honor what others deal with instead of trying to efface it.

[Warriorbird]

When you deny someone's ability to argue or understand based solely on status you are becoming your enemy.

[Tolwynn]

Holy Crap, you are SO right. You've never actually experienced direct discrimination, but you understand it as well as anyone who has! All hail the white, heterosexual, middle-class mind! It understands everything!

Get over yourself and at least pretend to honor what others deal with instead of trying to efface it.

If you think the white, middle-class heterosexual males that you so love to rant about are incapable of being discriminated against in any fashion, maybe it would do you a bit of good to take off your blinkers a bit. While they certainly don't bear the brunt of things, excluding the possibility when you paint with broad swathes of your brush only undermines your argument.

Is it perhaps that since you're not one, you're incapable of understanding that? By that token, you should also be incapable of understanding what blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and whatever other segments you can think of go through, too. No matter how much you learn, or help, or familiarize yourself, it's just not going to sink in, is it? You're just not one of them.

Also, consider this.

There are, shockingly, white, middle-class homosexual males.

Under your argument, as being homosexual, they should be able to understand the plight of homosexuals, whereas their heterosexual counterpart somehow cannot. The only difference between the two, all other things equal, is that one is a homosexual, and one is a heterosexual.

Through that, your argument collapses right back into you can't understand us because you're not one of us, seasoned healthily with sarcasm and pejoratives.

Is that really the agenda you wish to advance?

[Necromancer]

The best part is...I AM white (albeit from a biracial family). And I include myself under the banner of "will never understand discrimination against skin color".

I'm sorry, but you CANNOT pretend that the world is the same place for someone who occupies a position of majority can understand the experience of being a minority in that regard. And to do so is not just ridiculous, it's irresponsible. All I ever argued was that the very concept of justice and liberty wasn't the same for people in the majority as it is for people in the minority, and that this was evident in the ideals (and demographics) of the libertarian party.

The big irony here is that if I had said "People who are minorities will never understand what it is like to be in the majority in this country", no one would have said a thing. But the moment I dared to implicate white, middle-class heterosexual men in any kind of enforced ignorance...WHAM. People come crawling out of the woodwork to decry it. That's also part of the power of the majority- the very mention that majority positions might be limited in some fashion is enough to cause an outcry as "unrealistic". It makes one wonder.

[Warriorbird]

So... you want to be exactly "what you oppose"... that people 'can't understand liberty (or justice)' based on categories.

You and Andrew Sullivan might have a lot in common.

[Necromancer]

So... you want to be exactly "what you oppose"... that people 'can't understand liberty (or justice)' based on categories.

You and Andrew Sullivan might have a lot in common.

That was quite possibly the most horrible thing you could have said.

[Clove]

The big irony here is that if I had said "People who are minorities will never understand what it is like to be in the majority in this country", no one would have said a thing.No. That would have been equally stereotypical bullshit.

[Warriorbird]

That was quite possibly the most horrible thing you could have said.

Perhaps. I think Sullivan is a giant douche. I don't think you're really anywhere near as questionable as he is. I don't dislike you. I think you've reacted to the tyranny of the majority in one specifically similar way, however.

You've decided that we're universally incapable of understanding not having everything handed to us and that majority of us hate you. One of you has just then decided to follow up on that by not holding a solid position and becoming a 'Libertarian'. Miraculously people still like him and employ him. He must think white heterosexual American is really stupid. You've just gotten a siege mentality complex and a fair dose of 'I'm better than all of them.'

I think a fair portion of the 'anti gay rights' movement are actually in it more for political gamesmanship than for being 'anti gay rights.' I imagine that's pretty tough to hear. It doesn't mean every white heterosexual male in America is that way though. Those propositions have been defeated a number of times.

You seem blind to the idea that there are a lot of ways towards understanding liberty and justice. Sure... we don't understand them in exactly the ways a number of minorities do... but we're well on a way to becoming a minority ourselves and blindness to the changes in our country is blindness to hope for a better future.

...and no, nobody should take this as me being anti gay rights. People should take this as me being anti somebody declaring he understands exactly what a group of people are while they can never understand what he is.

[Gan]

Holy Crap, you are SO right. You've never actually experienced direct discrimination, but you understand it as well as anyone who has! All hail the white, heterosexual, middle-class mind! It understands everything!

Get over yourself and at least pretend to honor what others deal with instead of trying to efface it.

"That was quite possibly the most horrible thing you could have said."

[Mabus]

No. That would have been equally stereotypical bullshit.
QFT

[Faent]

The best part is...I AM white (albeit from a biracial family). And I include myself under the banner of "will never understand discrimination against skin color".

If you don't understand it yourself, it's *very unlikely* that you're in a position to tell others they can't understand it. Think of a ten year old asserting that nobody can understand general relativity. The ten year old doesn't know what she's talking about (analogously: you've admitted you don't know what you're talking about), so she has no standing to tell other people they can't understand it either.

I think you sound just like that ten year old. Perhaps part of your problem is you lack an imagination. Perhaps you also don't read as much as you should. In any case, you need to look at something other than your skin to find the explanation for your cluelessness.

[Daniel]

Necromancer is black?

[Gan]

Necromancer is black?


The best part is...I AM white (albeit from a biracial family).

So if your parents are black and white... what does that make you? Black? White? Which connotation deserves dominance? Which deserves recessive?

Neither?

Both?

:wtf:

[Tea & Strumpets]

The best part is...I AM white (albeit from a biracial family). And I include myself under the banner of "will never understand discrimination against skin color".


Don't let these meat-eaters hold you down.

[Daniel]

So if your parents are black and white... what does that make you? Black? White? Which connotation deserves dominance? Which deserves recessive?

Neither?

Both?

:wtf:

It's difficult and usually left up to the individual. In America I'm black because that's what people see me as. However, I'm closer to the white side of my family than my black (which isn't saying much).

In a place like Germany, I'd never be considered German, despite knowing more about my german heritage than my African.

In some places in Africa I can identify as African without problems. In others, I'm not seen as Africa, or rather people are initially shocked to learn that I am.

In the middle east I'm Egyptian. No questions asked. (No, seriously. It's weird. I've have people tell me I'm the most egyptian looking person ever, dead serious). When I was in Iraq, I had to stop going around the Iraqi army ebcause I'd cause crowds of people to form to see the Arab actually in the US military (as opposed to translating or some shit).

[Jorddyn]

So if your parents are black and white... what does that make you? Black? White? Which connotation deserves dominance? Which deserves recessive?

He's beige.

[Necromancer]

This conversation has quickly gone far beyond where it was intended, which is an interesting and potentially good thing. But, as the white men (even the self-identified liberals) have come rushing up to prove one thing while demonstrating the opposite, the conversation is going nowhere.

However, I'll leave this thread with a parting note that will certainly NOT go over well with those who have rushed in to defend the majority culture (as though they were under attack?), but to the others who have PMd me with sympathy and those watching in the wings, it may.

There is a theory, known as phallicized whiteness that deals with the consolidated power of the majority (as a structural thing, not as an individual thing). Part of that theory, which I always found interesting but had never given too much thought after the fact, that discusses the fundamental NEED for phallicized whiteness to subsume and control all aspects of society. It is rooted in neoliberalism in many ways.

What the people in this thread have done is really demonstrate that theory in action. The *moment* the majority was told that it could NOT understand something, and hence could NOT control it, subsume it, etc, there was a rallying cry. And to be sure, it is very threatening for that majority consolidation of power to have an avenue of society and culture it cannot own- even if its its own waste products. Though, individuals are NOT phallicized whiteness- again it is structural.

But individuals do live within that system. There is nothing that a white, heterosexual, middle-class man is EVER told that they cannot have, cannot do, cannot be. There is no part of society that phallicized whiteness does not own, no space that the rest occupy that is not ultimately anything other than a lease. There is, likewise, no knowledge (because knowledge and power are intimately involved) that is not owned or leased by phallicized whiteness. When an individual, who has never been told in their life that there was some aspect to society that they could *never* be a part of- that limitation is alien and jarring. Neoliberalism teaches us that all limitations must be transgressed- that goes for everyone no matter what their identity. And so, we see these people rush up on the boards to transgress- to make things as they were again. To ensure that they are back in the comfort (that they've never recognized but have always been rewarded with) of knowing that nothing related to power or knowledge is off limits to them.

I see that going on in this thread. And while I know this post will meet up with more rallying cries, obscenities, etc, it is nonetheless true.

And, PS, I'm not half black ;)

[g++]

This conversation has quickly gone far beyond where it was intended, which is an interesting and potentially good thing. But, as the white men (even the self-identified liberals) have come rushing up to prove one thing while demonstrating the opposite, the conversation is going nowhere.

However, I'll leave this thread with a parting note that will certainly NOT go over well with those who have rushed in to defend the majority culture (as though they were under attack?), but to the others who have PMd me with sympathy and those watching in the wings, it may.

There is a theory, known as phallicized whiteness that deals with the consolidated power of the majority (as a structural thing, not as an individual thing). Part of that theory, which I always found interesting but had never given too much thought after the fact, that discusses the fundamental NEED for phallicized whiteness to subsume and control all aspects of society. It is rooted in neoliberalism in many ways.

What the people in this thread have done is really demonstrate that theory in action. The *moment* the majority was told that it could NOT understand something, and hence could NOT control it, subsume it, etc, there was a rallying cry. And to be sure, it is very threatening for that majority consolidation of power to have an avenue of society and culture it cannot own- even if its its own waste products. Though, individuals are NOT phallicized whiteness- again it is structural.

But individuals do live within that system. There is nothing that a white, heterosexual, middle-class man is EVER told that they cannot have, cannot do, cannot be. There is no part of society that phallicized whiteness does not own, no space that the rest occupy that is not ultimately anything other than a lease. There is, likewise, no knowledge (because knowledge and power are intimately involved) that is not owned or leased by phallicized whiteness. When an individual, who has never been told in their life that there was some aspect to society that they could *never* be a part of- that limitation is alien and jarring. Neoliberalism teaches us that all limitations must be transgressed- that goes for everyone no matter what their identity. And so, we see these people rush up on the boards to transgress- to make things as they were again. To ensure that they are back in the comfort (that they've never recognized but have always been rewarded with) of knowing that nothing related to power or knowledge is off limits to them.

I see that going on in this thread. And while I know this post will meet up with more rallying cries, obscenities, etc, it is nonetheless true.

And, PS, I'm not half black ;)


Thats too long to read. Im going to go oppress someone.

[Warriorbird]

Why would I want to control or subsume people being Libertarian or understanding justice or liberty?

As a person I often sabotage myself to avoid having power. Yet another generalization from you. The irony is I support all the ideals that you presume to be for... yet according to you I can't.

Way to not make allies. I guess that plays into your persecution complex. "Oh I'm so beautiful and intelligent and I live in a country where I'm not in fear and life is so hard!"

I find it ironic that here I'm often cast as the 'knee-jerk liberal' yet to you I can't help but be The Man.

[Necromancer]

It's not my job to make allies, and you have, as always, missed my point. All I ever argued was that you CANNOT understand oppression until you have been victim of it. You can sympathize, you can know intellectually, but you cannot understand it. That seemed to cause quite the rise- it was more than a certain group (all white men I might add) could bear to hear. It had to be attacked- it had to be disproven. And yet, had I said "Hey, you'll never understand what it is like to be a pilot until you've been piloting a plane" there would have been no complaint.

I used to be like you- I balked at the notion that because I was a white man I couldn't understand what it is like to live as a racial minority. Particularly as a man from a biracial family, I felt I had certain insights- that eventually I could come to know AND comprehend. But after a few years of working in racial justice, I realized that entire sentiment was part of my white entitlement. Your knee-jerk reaction to my statement is also white entitlement. As described in my previous post- you are a white, heterosexual middle-class man being told, for the first time, that there is some part of society you will never fully understand- and will never come to occupy or be comfortable in. It exposes the limitations (and entitlements) that are inherent in your subjectivity- produced through and from your body (and what you do with it). That's uncomfortable, but it's important that you come to understand that.

Or you're no better than the men who took over 1st wave feminism with the best of intentions and worst of practices.

[Gan]

It's difficult and usually left up to the individual. In America I'm black because that's what people see me as. However, I'm closer to the white side of my family than my black (which isn't saying much).

In a place like Germany, I'd never be considered German, despite knowing more about my german heritage than my African.

In some places in Africa I can identify as African without problems. In others, I'm not seen as Africa, or rather people are initially shocked to learn that I am.

In the middle east I'm Egyptian. No questions asked. (No, seriously. It's weird. I've have people tell me I'm the most egyptian looking person ever, dead serious). When I was in Iraq, I had to stop going around the Iraqi army ebcause I'd cause crowds of people to form to see the Arab actually in the US military (as opposed to translating or some shit).

The reason for asking is that I have a very good friend who's father is white and her mother is black. She is quite beautiful and refuses to be labeled by either. Because in her opinion she's neither. My assistant from Guatemala says the term for mixed heritage would be Mulattosomething (I cant remember how he pronounced it). And in his birth country (he's now a US citizen) lineage such as that is still a big deal.

And I also know people who choose one or the other in the original question simply because its the heritage/culture they choose to identify with. Even if in certain instances there is not 100% acceptance by those not of mixed race lineage.

So if anything, my conclusion would be that while its a personal choice its not one of consistency. Some choose it for appearances, others for heritage, and some refuse to choose completely. But by choosing one over the other it might reflect correctly the choice made by that individual, its not technically correct with regards to actual lineage, if thats what is to be definition of the descriptor.

[Gan]

This conversation has quickly gone far beyond where it was intended, which is an interesting and potentially good thing. But, as the white men (even the self-identified liberals) have come rushing up to prove one thing while demonstrating the opposite, the conversation is going nowhere.

However, I'll leave this thread with a parting note that will certainly NOT go over well with those who have rushed in to defend the majority culture (as though they were under attack?), but to the others who have PMd me with sympathy and those watching in the wings, it may.

There is a theory, known as phallicized whiteness that deals with the consolidated power of the majority (as a structural thing, not as an individual thing). Part of that theory, which I always found interesting but had never given too much thought after the fact, that discusses the fundamental NEED for phallicized whiteness to subsume and control all aspects of society. It is rooted in neoliberalism in many ways.

What the people in this thread have done is really demonstrate that theory in action. The *moment* the majority was told that it could NOT understand something, and hence could NOT control it, subsume it, etc, there was a rallying cry. And to be sure, it is very threatening for that majority consolidation of power to have an avenue of society and culture it cannot own- even if its its own waste products. Though, individuals are NOT phallicized whiteness- again it is structural.

But individuals do live within that system. There is nothing that a white, heterosexual, middle-class man is EVER told that they cannot have, cannot do, cannot be. There is no part of society that phallicized whiteness does not own, no space that the rest occupy that is not ultimately anything other than a lease. There is, likewise, no knowledge (because knowledge and power are intimately involved) that is not owned or leased by phallicized whiteness. When an individual, who has never been told in their life that there was some aspect to society that they could *never* be a part of- that limitation is alien and jarring. Neoliberalism teaches us that all limitations must be transgressed- that goes for everyone no matter what their identity. And so, we see these people rush up on the boards to transgress- to make things as they were again. To ensure that they are back in the comfort (that they've never recognized but have always been rewarded with) of knowing that nothing related to power or knowledge is off limits to them.

I see that going on in this thread. And while I know this post will meet up with more rallying cries, obscenities, etc, it is nonetheless true.

And, PS, I'm not half black ;)
Without kneejerking, crying rally, or shouting obsceneties I have to wholehaertedly disagree with you. I'm white and I have no desire to "subsume and control all aspects of society" in any aspect outside of my own household. And even in my household the nature of my existance is coexistance with my wife and child.

So aside from your flair for the dramatic (see leaving thread with a parting note and yet still posting another response below) and penchant for obscure thesis on hidden sociological traits of a majority culture of which you do not feel part of (through your own mechanizations I might add), I sincerely think that you are overanalizing society in order to find a niche where you think you fit in. Lets start a new thesis called justifiable existence and assign that label to you.


It's not my job to make allies, and you have, as always, missed my point. All I ever argued was that you CANNOT understand oppression until you have been victim of it. You can sympathize, you can know intellectually, but you cannot understand it. That seemed to cause quite the rise- it was more than a certain group (all white men I might add) could bear to hear. It had to be attacked- it had to be disproven. And yet, had I said "Hey, you'll never understand what it is like to be a pilot until you've been piloting a plane" there would have been no complaint.

I used to be like you- I balked at the notion that because I was a white man I couldn't understand what it is like to live as a racial minority. Particularly as a man from a biracial family, I felt I had certain insights- that eventually I could come to know AND comprehend. But after a few years of working in racial justice, I realized that entire sentiment was part of my white entitlement. Your knee-jerk reaction to my statement is also white entitlement. As described in my previous post- you are a white, heterosexual middle-class man being told, for the first time, that there is some part of society you will never fully understand- and will never come to occupy or be comfortable in. It exposes the limitations (and entitlements) that are inherent in your subjectivity- produced through and from your body (and what you do with it). That's uncomfortable, but it's important that you come to understand that.

Or you're no better than the men who took over 1st wave feminism with the best of intentions and worst of practices.

So is this your last post?

Flair for the dramatic anyone?

[Necromancer]

The story about my own history was left out of my 'final' post, but I had intended to include it. That's why there was another post- I wanted to tell that story.

[Warriorbird]

You presume so much, Necromancer. Your whole dialogue and drifts farther and farther away from my actual experience or even what I've claimed the more you write into it. You feel as though you totally understand me, totally understand Libertarians, and totally understand middle class white heterosexual males. Yet nobody can understand you! The world is wide. The sheer amount of variety in your convenient little categories makes your generalizations fail completely.

The core of my disagreement with you was you claiming that I couldn't understand justice or liberty based solely on the fact that I'm white, heterosexual, and middle class. Step away from your 'intelligentsia' role and analyze what that sounds like from an outside perspective.

Declaring that you know all about every Libertarian ever is what brought me into the discussion. On the face of your own flawed (but you never admit those) rationale you actually can't.

The whole thing has been entertaining. I'm just not convinced that I'm superior to everybody else. You seem to be convinced that you have an innate superiority of understanding. If I was I imagine I'd be happier.

[oldanforgotten]

and the countdown begins. A little over 25 hours until the polls close in Indiana

[Necromancer]

I never once argued that you couldn't understand liberty- I argued that you couldn't understand what liberty meant to someone who was a minority. Even a third party tried to point that out to you, and you STILL didn't get it. I'm done arguing the point though- you get it or you don't. Simple as pie.

[Parkbandit]

Jesus fucking Christ... isn't a "parting note" something you post then STFU? It certainly isn't something you post, then continue to post and post and post.

Both Republicans and Democrats and even Libertarians believe you to be stupid. Stop proving them all right.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I never once argued that you couldn't understand liberty- I argued that you couldn't understand what liberty meant to someone who was a minority. Even a third party tried to point that out to you, and you STILL didn't get it. I'm done arguing the point though- you get it or you don't. Simple as pie.

The only way we will know if you are wrong is if a homosexual minority disagrees with you, because white heterosexual people don't get it.

Holy fuck are you stupid.

[g++]

The story about my own history was left out of my 'final' post, but I had intended to include it. That's why there was another post- I wanted to tell that story.

No one gives a fuck about your history/race/shoe size.