Notes from the Realm of the Obvious
Your proposition presumes "reputation" is sufficient. There is a reason I asked what part of history supports your simplistic proposition. And I think there is also a reason you didn't bother answering.
So, when you compared dark skin to, say, a sex crime, what was the functional purpose of that juxtaposition?
Were you just comparing the existential reality of dark skin to willful offensive behavior for the hell of it? I mean, sure, that could be part of the problem, that anyone else would think there was some actual reason you so demanded people talk about your comparisons. But, hey, if it was just to denigrate dark skin, we have our answer. In any case, you can't make a racist argument about racism and say it has absolutely nothing to do with racism.
Not all white supremacists are freeloaders. But you have also argued a lack of obligations to society. That would make them freeloaders. If they have the same obligations as everybody else, why are you bawling about the rights of white supremacists to enforce white supremacism? If they have the same obligations as everybody else, why are you wasting all this time and effort demanding special privilege for them?
Make-believe does not a rational argument make.
You know, it's funny; back in the Reagan years, people used to complain that I expected Utopia. The problem with your version is the good faith required to make bad faith functional.
There is nothing in history to support the functionality of the society you describe.
What you seem to overlook is people's behavior; many do, in fact, assesrt to make their religious ideologies relevant.
Yeah, well, we ought not wonder why the anti-Trump majority is growing. But, yeah, my parents' generation is embarrassed. Well, the white part of the generation. See, they used to get really pissed off at us when we talked about racism, thought we were being too hard on our beloved America. You know, the whole "bad seeds" argument. This was the kind of shit that would get some kids stropped; y'don't talk bad 'bout 'Merica that way.
A lot of people my parents' age are simply shocked. They really, really didn't think that many of their patriotic, God-fearin' American neighbors believed these kinds of things. The problem with being an American liberal is that you don't get to cheer when you're right; it usually means we've just gone and proven a point in a spectacularly awful way. There's no hooray when the war goes awry, or there aren't enough helicopters left for the wildfire season because the war has gone awry; there's no raising a glass and congratulating ourselves because we were right about the economy collapsing; look at the correlation between the opioid epidemic and Trump voters, by county, and what joy is there in being right about how our way of dealing with drug addiction wasn't working?
Turns out my white-privileged middle-class cohort were right about racism. Black people could have told me that, but, you know, we were raised in the white middle class, so ... I don't know, it had something to do with rap, though, I think. Or ask the women. In the eighties, when we were supposed to freak out about pop music, we weren't listening to the women telling us what was wrong with the misogyny, we were listening to the misogynists telling us what was wrong with women. My male-privileged middle-class cohort were right about sexism, too.
But we're Americans; being right didn't spare us from taking part. There is a reason we thought it ran deep. There is no joy in knowing we were right.
More to the point, one of the reasons it helps to have a clue what you're on about is that your punch lines have a better chance of making sense.
You advocate racism and for racists.
You advocate racism and for racists.
Altruism? What has the destruction of the reputation of a contract breaker to do with altruism? It is a powerful penalty for breaking the contract, and it is available to everybody. Reputation is the most important thing in almost all small societies.
Your proposition presumes "reputation" is sufficient. There is a reason I asked what part of history supports your simplistic proposition. And I think there is also a reason you didn't bother answering.
I see no reason to deny it. I always compare only different things. It would not make sense to compare things which are the same. This has absolutely nothing to do with racism.
So, when you compared dark skin to, say, a sex crime, what was the functional purpose of that juxtaposition?
Were you just comparing the existential reality of dark skin to willful offensive behavior for the hell of it? I mean, sure, that could be part of the problem, that anyone else would think there was some actual reason you so demanded people talk about your comparisons. But, hey, if it was just to denigrate dark skin, we have our answer. In any case, you can't make a racist argument about racism and say it has absolutely nothing to do with racism.
Why you name white supremacists freeloaders? In a liberal society their stupid ideology is irrelevant. They have the same obligations as everybody.
Not all white supremacists are freeloaders. But you have also argued a lack of obligations to society. That would make them freeloaders. If they have the same obligations as everybody else, why are you bawling about the rights of white supremacists to enforce white supremacism? If they have the same obligations as everybody else, why are you wasting all this time and effort demanding special privilege for them?
First, there is no social contract, but a state, that means, an organization with military power, which enforces several monopoly rights for itself over a territory it controls. "Social contract" is ideological nonsense to justify the threat of violence against those who do not pay taxes.
Make-believe does not a rational argument make.
In a liberal state the obligations are well-defined by law and have to follow liberal principles. Which makes a liberal state less evil. But, whatever, the obligations are well-defined, and the supremacists in my construction have the same obligations as all other people. As well as the same rights.
You know, it's funny; back in the Reagan years, people used to complain that I expected Utopia. The problem with your version is the good faith required to make bad faith functional.
There is nothing in history to support the functionality of the society you describe.
No, at least you have not got it. The mental dysfunction of suprematism is, as well as all the religions, ideologies and other mental dysfunctions, completely irrelevant in every liberal state. It does in no way change their freedom of contract, and their freedom to use their property as they like.
What you seem to overlook is people's behavior; many do, in fact, assesrt to make their religious ideologies relevant.
Indeed, and now you have to live with the consequences of their reaction, four years with Trump. Have fun.
Yeah, well, we ought not wonder why the anti-Trump majority is growing. But, yeah, my parents' generation is embarrassed. Well, the white part of the generation. See, they used to get really pissed off at us when we talked about racism, thought we were being too hard on our beloved America. You know, the whole "bad seeds" argument. This was the kind of shit that would get some kids stropped; y'don't talk bad 'bout 'Merica that way.
A lot of people my parents' age are simply shocked. They really, really didn't think that many of their patriotic, God-fearin' American neighbors believed these kinds of things. The problem with being an American liberal is that you don't get to cheer when you're right; it usually means we've just gone and proven a point in a spectacularly awful way. There's no hooray when the war goes awry, or there aren't enough helicopters left for the wildfire season because the war has gone awry; there's no raising a glass and congratulating ourselves because we were right about the economy collapsing; look at the correlation between the opioid epidemic and Trump voters, by county, and what joy is there in being right about how our way of dealing with drug addiction wasn't working?
Turns out my white-privileged middle-class cohort were right about racism. Black people could have told me that, but, you know, we were raised in the white middle class, so ... I don't know, it had something to do with rap, though, I think. Or ask the women. In the eighties, when we were supposed to freak out about pop music, we weren't listening to the women telling us what was wrong with the misogyny, we were listening to the misogynists telling us what was wrong with women. My male-privileged middle-class cohort were right about sexism, too.
But we're Americans; being right didn't spare us from taking part. There is a reason we thought it ran deep. There is no joy in knowing we were right.
More to the point, one of the reasons it helps to have a clue what you're on about is that your punch lines have a better chance of making sense.
I guess with the last phrase you want to suggest that my writings here make me a racist? Lol.
Its rather funny to argue with totalitarian American "liberals". They cannot argue without personal defamation. Once I argue about Russia, I'm called a Russian, once I argue about white racists, I'm called a white racist. Once I criticize Clinton I'm called a republican fascist. But they have no problem to support white supremacists themselves. In the Ukraine, these Nazis are named "freedom fighters".
Fortunately all your name calling is nothing I would have to care about. It does not harm me. Because I'm independent. I don't have to be politically correct. I have to care only about the opinion of my friends, and these friends do not care about my political correctness. So, if I would be really a racist, I would openly defend racism. But I'm not a racist, but a libertarian anarchist.
You advocate racism and for racists.
It is defamatory, because, first, your intention is clear. In your environment racists are despised, so, if you name me a racist, your aim is quite obvious - you want that other readers here despise me. So, you want to harm me. Second, it is simply wrong. Actually I spend most of my time in Africa. Not because of a job or so, no, I prefer to live with the people there, instead of living in Germany.
The interesting question is why American liberals behave quite consistently in such a way. In the past, I have thought that the explanation is simple - people without arguments about the content start arguments ad hominem. So, not much to care, once the opponent starts with ad hominem, you are the winner of the discussion about the content. But, even if ad hominem was always quite common in the internet, in this forum this seems much more frequent and much more obtrusive. The usual, classical way was some discussion about the content, then the loser makes a few ad hominem statements and after this no longer participates. So that these ad hominems are simply used as a cover, a justification for leaving without admitting the defeat.
Here, the quality of the use of defamation is different. It looks like the aim of the discussion is different. It is not to win the argument about the content, but the personal attack itself seems to be the point of the discussion. The content seems more like a side issue, a pretense to start a personal argument.
You advocate racism and for racists.