Sigh.
Against my better judgment, I'll respond to a few of the highlights:
1.
So, when a white person is denied a job or a position solely due to the fact his skin is not black, is that not discrimination based on race? Whether their intentions are good or not, the outcome is still based on the color of someone's skin. I think that is the point Doc is trying to make.
First of all, I had just finished telling you that I "don't agree" with affirmative action. That means I'm not going to defend it as if I did agree, of course.
Second, we're not discussing "outcomes" without regard to "whether or not their intentions are good." DrJones alleged that their intentions are not good, and I think that's a bit naive. In fact, he alleged that their intentions are so bad that they're worse than the average Klansman. I tried to be diplomatic about it, but to put it bluntly, that position is ludicrous and I can't imagine how it can be defended. Since everyone seems to have abandoned it and turned to straw men built out of "outcomes" and such, I guess I'm not alone in that assessment.
2. (Mike)
Shame on you, Dr. Jones.
Everyone knows that liberals simply can't be racist. Because they're liberal.
Only conservatives can be racist.
Yeah, Mike, 'cause that's more or less what I said, right?
Or at least,
someone must have said it in this conversation.
Right?
Well, actually, no, it's not. The story about your friend's mother? Illustrative and enlightening as a study in hypocrisy, sure. But it has nothing to do with DrJones' point, which was that most liberals do
not act like your friend's mother, but are still horrible racists as evidenced by their belief in affirmative action, which is "more racist" than cross burnings, church bombings, lynchings, and white power rallies.
3.
KKK and Neo-Nazi types are nowhere near as dangerous (to society as a whole) as any liberal that I have ever met. Overt racists are fringe element freaks that are easily spotted and dismissed for the raving animals that they are.
That's debatable, but I'd say it's true for the present day. It is only true, however, because it became so prohibitive to be one of those "types" in polite society. It wasn't that long ago that it was no big deal. Who changed it?
For the most part, people who, at the time, were reviled and hissed at because they were "liberals." If the KKK and such are a small threat today, it is largely because the "liberals" won on that particular issue.
Besides, we've found another straw man. DrJones did not allege that liberals are more dangerous than the KKK. He said they were worse racists. I believe that street muggings are a greater danger to me than serial killers, but that doesn't mean that the average mugger is a worse person than Jeffrey Dahmer. If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are more dangerous than the KKK, it's only because they have more popular support and more power. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, in fact, may be as racist as your average KKK member (or they may just be shakedown artists.) But then, they're not your average liberal, either.
4. St. Johns said it: "People are people." I can't stress this enough, people. Liberals
disagree with us. They're not demons. They're not necessarily evil. They just don't agree as to the best course of action. If you don't believe that, what are you doing? Why debate at all?
One does not debate with monsters. You don't debate with a Hussein or a Hitler. If the average liberal is a slavering racist monster, there's no reason to try to engage or defeat Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi in the arena of ideas. Any sensible person would just shoot that kind of threat in the head. But of course, if you step back and really think about it, I think you'll agree that you don't really want to do that.
If you want to tilt at windmills, that is your prerogative. I'm done engaging double-speaking weasles. I let liberals defeat themselves.
