Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 06, 2021

Over the past 250 years classical liberalism has helped bring about unparalleled progress. It will not vanish in a puff of smoke. But it is undergoing a severe test, just as it did a century ago when the cancers of Bolshevism and fascism began to eat away at liberal Europe from within. It is time for liberals to understand what they are up against and to fight back. Nowhere is the fight fiercer than in America, where this week the Supreme Court chose not to strike down a draconian and bizarre anti-abortion law. The most dangerous threat in liberalism's spiritual home comes from the Trumpian right. Populists denigrate liberal edifices such as science and the rule of law as faades for a plot by the deep state against the people. The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America "liberal" has come to include an illiberal left...

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Over the past 250 years classical liberalism has helped bring about unparalleled progress. It will not vanish in a puff of smoke. But it is undergoing a severe test, just as it did a century ago when the cancers of Bolshevism and fascism began to eat away at liberal Europe from within. It is time for liberals to understand what they are up against and to fight back.

Nowhere is the fight fiercer than in America, where this week the Supreme Court chose not to strike down a draconian and bizarre anti-abortion law. The most dangerous threat in liberalism's spiritual home comes from the Trumpian right. Populists denigrate liberal edifices such as science and the rule of law as faades for a plot by the deep state against the people.

The attack from the left is harder to grasp, partly because in America "liberal" has come to include an illiberal left...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What is sick about the Right I and millions of others have been experiencing our entire lives. I think I know most of the reasons why you're so damaged. But my understanding doesn't mitigate how rawly dishonest and vicious you are. You're not even curious about your own bad behavior. Like any truly insane people you sincerely believe that you're normal and will hurt the rest of us until we nod our heads in agreement.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-06 08:27 AM | Reply

Interesting read.

Clearly the biggest threat is from the right, and I'm glad they started out with that. But like liberals do, we immediately go on to dwell on our side and criticize it.

The authors miss or refuse to admit why "illiberalism" from the left has developed. The reason, dear Economist, is because classic liberalism has failed. Racism is still systemic. Health insurance here in the U.S. is not universal. One political party has gained strength by offering authoritarian option to fix everything for the poor aggreived while middle aged and older male. Guns are ubiquitous, mass shootings happen every day. Going to school and feeling safe isn't an option. Oh, and did I say, the right through social media, platforms, propaganda outlets masquerading as "News" have flourished and fed White grievance, a powerful political weapon?

Had the promise of classic liberalism born better results and not so many broken promises perhaps the authors would have grounds to stand on in their critique. Offering only more of the same achieves nothing. A plea to keep doing the same thing again and again isn't going to be heard.

I'm a liberal, and I prefer classic liberalism, but I have to admit it's time to re-examine liberalism from a practical and results-driven perspective. Don't just whine, Economist. Offer solutions.

Standing up to those "illberals" in our party isn't a solution. It's tone-deaf, head in the sand, self-defeating stupidity.

#2 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 09:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Had the promise of classic liberalism born better results and not so many broken promises perhaps the authors would have grounds to stand on in their critique."

That's the thing about liberalism...that you value it above your own interests. Racism is a function of the human condition. It always has been. It always will be. The best that you can hope for is a system that doesn't honor or incorporate racism into law or policy.

Healthcare is achieved when one party willingly provides it to another without regard for compensation, or when a government or other power entity forces one party to provide it without regard for compensation.

Guns rights were written into the constitution as a means of protecting liberalism from illiberalism.

And both you and Zed are effectively advocating for an authoritarian state...just an authoritarian state that represents your interests. Donald Trump did the same thing.

It wouldn't be the first time in history that liberal regimes were destroyed by illiberals, be the right-wingers or progressives. Pointing first to Germany under the National Socialists. but even the Czar's Russia was more tolerant than the Soviet Socialist government that replaced it. In both cases, it was authoritarians promising to make right the wrongs that the citizens of those countries had experienced. I don't see a bit of difference today, coming from left or right.

#3 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 09:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

What I could read of the article wasa spot on. (I don't make subscriptions for a single article). It is no surprise to anyone here I would say that about the article.

#3 - you post could not be closer to the truth. Great retort.

#4 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-06 10:00 AM | Reply

The morphing of liberals to the toxic progressives is weakening the Democratic party, but the progressives just don't see it. If the party embraced true liberalism, it would be an unstoppable force to the right. But the Democratic party is instead choosing to eat its own and destroy itself from within by embracing the radical progressives and pushing the liberals to the wayside.

#5 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-06 10:05 AM | Reply

"Racism is a function of the human condition. It always has been. It always will be."

^
Something a racist would say.
Racism is taught. It's not innate.

"Healthcare is achieved when one party willingly provides it to another without regard for compensation, or when a government or other power entity forces one party to provide it without regard for compensation."

That's true of anything that society achieves. Like racism.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 10:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Guns rights were written into the constitution as a means of protecting liberalism from illiberalism."

Hardly.

Democracy is two whites and a black voting on whom to enslave. Liberty is a well-armed black contesting the vote.

Unfortunately, that never happened. Because the Founding Fathers built a racist nation.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 10:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Don't just whine, Economist. Offer solutions."

Propaganda is their solution.

The Opinion page of The Economist has made a predictable hard right turn since Rupert Murdoch bought it.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Guns rights were written into the constitution as a means of protecting liberalism from illiberalism.
This is true in a way, but not because of illiberalism from the Left as much as from the Right, and of the King and the Conservatives that supported the King and status quo. Your mistake is assuming that illiberalism is meant to apply only to the Left in this case. It does not. Nor was illiberalism the only threat. Reading it that way is incredibly self-serving, inaccurate, and limiting.

And both you and Zed are effectively advocating for an authoritarian state...just an authoritarian state that represents your interests. Donald Trump did the same thing.

I'm not even remotely advocating that. I'm pointing out why this move on both sides is happening and that waging war on your own side is not productive. Understanding the root cause is what's key - listening - and then looking at actual solutions. That's the way to diffuse the radicalization that's happening.

As a classic liberal, I have to admit the ideology is falling short. We need to examine why or we're going to lose that ideology that makes the United States of America what it is.

Your proposition is black or white. We see gradations across the world that we can look to, learn from, and be informed by.

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 10:30 AM | Reply

True Snoofy.

#10 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 10:31 AM | Reply

"And both you and Zed are effectively advocating for an authoritarian state"

Is there another kind of state -- a state without authority?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 10:32 AM | Reply

Is it a really long article? Too long for someone to repost?

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2021-09-06 10:43 AM | Reply

The threat from the illiberal (I love that word! Never seen it before) left is not a threat to the right. It is a threat to the left. Moderates who vote for the person, not the party are turned off by these new progressives and are nudged to the right. How far they are nudged is directly proportional to the toxicity of the illiberals.

Thanks, progressives!

#13 | Posted by jakester at 2021-09-06 10:50 AM | Reply

#12 - Copy rights. I won't do that.

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 10:50 AM | Reply

Jesus.
Will someone get "Jakester" a dictionary?
F**k me. I am so glad he has me PLONKED.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 10:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"In both cases, it was authoritarians promising to make right the wrongs that the citizens of those countries had experienced. I don't see a bit of difference today, coming from left or right."

Since all governments are necessarily authoritarian, what you are saying is simply a tautology.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:01 AM | Reply

Guns rights were written into the constitution as a means of protecting liberalism from illiberalism.

#3 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2021-09-06 09:52

Gun rights were written into the Constitution as a means to provide for the national defense without a standing army.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-06 11:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For extra points, but serving Air Force types only, what enemy aircraft was Goering most obsessesed with during WWII?

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2021-09-06 11:10 AM | Reply

"The Opinion page of The Economist has made a predictable hard right turn since Rupert Murdoch bought it."

No. It's always been like this.

The magazine is what most intelligent people would characterize as objective. And liberal.

Progressives, most not wanting to be bothered with objectivity or liberalism would reject The Economist as Bourgeoise propaganda. Which he has done here.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Your mistake is assuming that illiberalism is meant to apply only to the Left in this case."

Not at all. I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion.

In retrospect, I think the founders assumed that society writ-large would want to stand up and protect liberal society. And this was in a time that precedes the current left/right construct as we understand it.

It turns out that many people only favor liberalism when it benefits them.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'm pointing out why this move on both sides is happening and that waging war on your own side is not productive."

"Liberalism" is my side. I feel like you're pointing out why liberalism needs to be tempered, for the greater good.

Here's the thing, you can go ask any Trumper why they support him...they're going to tell you he protects American jobs from immigrants. That he's protecting the common man. Do you remember his speech in January? he said, "They're not coming after me, they're coming after you. I'm just in their way."

It's all a bunch of easily disproved --------. Maybe 5% truth. A small grain on which to build. But it's not different on the left. Bernie and AOC making claims on how the rich steal money from the poor. On how white people are inherently racist. On why free speech needs to be metered in order to protect the feelings of "people of color" or "marginalized communities." On why gender is something you choose. That's OK. But forcing everyone else to pretend as well is an insult to liberalism.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"No. It's always been like this."

Disagree.
Neoliberalism is not classical liberalism.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:25 AM | Reply

"Your proposition is black or white. We see gradations across the world that we can look to, learn from, and be informed by."

It is black or white. You live in a liberal society or you do not.

I understand your point, but your point is that liberalism must be tempered with limits to liberalism. Which is true from every country from the US to Somalia to North Korea.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:26 AM | Reply

"Here's the thing, you can go ask any Trumper why they support him...they're going to tell you he protects American jobs from immigrants."

Okay, but that's not true.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:26 AM | Reply

"It is black or white. You live in a liberal society or you do not."

Texas new abortion law. Liberal society?
You tell us.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:27 AM | Reply

"But it's not different on the left."

It's very different on the left.
Vaccination rates don't lie.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:28 AM | Reply

"For extra points, but serving Air Force types only, what enemy aircraft was Goering most obsessesed with during WWII?"

I'm going to go with Amerikabomber...but I'm guessing.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:28 AM | Reply

"Okay, but that's not true."

Nor is it true that the poorer people would be richer if it weren't for millionaires and billionaires.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:29 AM | Reply

"On how white people are inherently racist."

You mean this?

"Racism is a function of the human condition. It always has been." -- MadBomber

It's true when you say it, but it's a lie when Rachel Maddow says it?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:30 AM | Reply

"Texas new abortion law. Liberal society?"

I don't know that much about it.

if I'm a cab driver, can I be sued if I drive a girl to get an abortion in Oklahoma?

It seems to me a stupid law...but a stupid law that won't stand.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:31 AM | Reply

"Vaccination rates don't lie."

And that matters...why?

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 11:32 AM | Reply

"Nor is it true that the poorer people would be richer if it weren't for millionaires and billionaires."

Where did this come from?

Dud you just grab one of your talking points randomly?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:32 AM | Reply

"It seems to me a stupid law"

I didn't ask that.
Is Texas with its new abortion law a liberal society or not?
Put up or shut up.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:34 AM | Reply

"Vaccination rates don't lie."
And that matters...why?
#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You said "But it's not different on the left."
It is different.

People on the left aren't like people on the right.

The biggest difference sure seems like it's empathy. I'm sure you've read about it, but I don't think you'll ever feel it.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Liberals aren't the ones making and promoting draconian laws that seek control people's lives and their voice at the ballot box. We're the ones constantly seeking to expand rights and enfranchise more people.

This article just isn't well enough developed to make its case.
Examples of these illiberal policies from the left and right would have been helpful. I suspect there are none from the left side. At least none by anyone on the left that actually has a voice and power in politics.

The right, though, wow. We have example after example after example of just that.

So perhaps you can illustrate with an example, MadBomber? Not a "theorhetical" or something someone that has no power is saying from a twitter feed?

That would move this discussion along. Right now the only threat I see if active, engaged, and from the right.

#35 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 11:39 AM | Reply

"This article just isn't well enough developed to make its case."

It won't ever be, because laissez faire Capitalism and its contemporary reanimated corpse called neoliberalism has obviously been a disaster. Exhibit A: Global Warming. Exhibit B: Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, it doesn't need to be well developed. This is just preaching to the choir. It's Alternate Facts for the 1%.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 11:48 AM | Reply

Just read it again.
This is as useful as an ideological harangue from the Mises Institute.

The only solution to systemic racism offered is:
"setting fair initial conditions and letting events unfold through competition"by, say, eliminating corporate monopolies, opening up guilds, radically reforming taxation and making education accessible with vouchers."

This is the "invisible hand" nonsense. Also vouchers? Promoted by The Economist? What?

In other words - "we got nothing."

I think I see why I stopped reading this publication a half dozen years ago.

#37 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 12:05 PM | Reply

I stopped reading after they backed the War in Iraq.

What kind of serious economist backs a war, and especially a war being fought with 1/3 the troop level needed to secure and rebuild?

That was a not renew my subscription level event.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:10 PM | Reply

"Where did this come from?"

You.

Since 1975, practically all economic gains have gone to the top 20% of households.

The statement itself is undoubted true. It came from the CIA. But what makes this metric important?

I don't think it is. You seem to think it matters.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Is Texas with its new abortion law a liberal society or not?"

Of course it's not liberal.

You need me to point that out to you?

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:14 PM | Reply

"People on the left aren't like people on the right."

I think we may need to drill down on this one a bit more.

Do you perceive me is being on the left or the right?

What about Donald Trump?

What about Sean Hannity?

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:15 PM | Reply

"The biggest difference sure seems like it's empathy. I'm sure you've read about it, but I don't think you'll ever feel it."

Empathy?

Like the empathy held by men like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:15 PM | Reply

Pol Pot , Even too much for the Vietnamese Glad they handled that.

#43 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:19 PM | Reply

"Liberals aren't the ones making and promoting draconian laws that seek control people's lives and their voice at the ballot box. We're the ones constantly seeking to expand rights and enfranchise more people."

First, I'm not convinced that you're a liberal.

Second, exactly how are progressive enfranchising anyone? Isn't that more of a constitutional thing? Do you know some way to add voters to rolls they otherwise wouldn't have been on?

And you can see why someone might be wary about a political party than wanted to create a bunch of new voters, especially if that party were the one guiding them on their political journey.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So perhaps you can illustrate with an example, MadBomber? Not a "theorhetical" or something someone that has no power is saying from a twitter feed?"

I think I can...I just want to be clear though. You're asking for an authoritarian policy promoted by the left?

Because that's pretty easy to find. The Green New Deal is the first thing that comes to mind, but certainly not the last.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:21 PM | Reply

"Create" a bunch of new voters

I'm sure you meant to say "enfranchise"

#46 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:24 PM | Reply

"It won't ever be, because laissez faire Capitalism and its contemporary reanimated corpse called neoliberalism has obviously been a disaster. Exhibit A: Global Warming. Exhibit B: Iraq and Afghanistan."

Here you go again advocating for an authoritarian regime?

Is Hitler or Stalin more your favorite?

You're also ignoring the unignorable fact that "laissez faire Capitalism and its contemporary reanimated corpse called neoliberalism" have created the wealthiest society this planet has ever known. And the freest.

Because of capitalism, there are now more middle class people on earth than not.

Do you think that would have occurred has the socialists won the cold war?

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:24 PM | Reply

"But, it doesn't need to be well developed. This is just preaching to the choir. It's Alternate Facts for the 1%."

I just realized something. For the Trumpers, the enemy is "the Swamp." For people like you, it's the 1%.

"Drain the 1%!"

Hey, Trump was very much against the type of people who would read the economist. Maybe you should give him another shot.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 12:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Laisse-faire capitalism? You mean like Carnegie or the Triangle shirt factory. Yeah those folks created the middle class. Gimme a break. Gimme some truth.

#49 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:30 PM | Reply

"Since 1975, practically all economic gains have gone to the top 20% of households.
The statement itself is undoubted true. It came from the CIA. But what makes this metric important?"

It's important because it shows the middle class is slowly being suffocated.
What makes the middle class important? You ought to know, but if you don't, ask an economist.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:46 PM | Reply

"Is Texas with its new abortion law a liberal society or not?"
Of course it's not liberal.
You need me to point that out to you?
#40 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Well if Texas is not a liberal society, what is?
Where can you go to live in a liberal society, and why haven't you done that?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:50 PM | Reply

He has, says he lives in Germany

#52 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-09-06 12:53 PM | Reply

Do you perceive me is being on the left or the right?
What about Donald Trump?
What about Sean Hannity?
#41 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Donald Trump is right-wing authoritarian.
Sean Hannity is a bobblehead.
Your fixation on Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pinochet, and whoever's running Venezuela this time reveals you to be authoritarian as well.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:54 PM | Reply

Trump was very much against the type of people who would read the economist. Maybe you should give him another shot.
#48 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Lots of people read The Economist. You're not saying anything.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 12:55 PM | Reply

"I just realized something. For the Trumpers, the enemy is "the Swamp." For people like you, it's the 1%."

The problem isn't the 1%. The problem is the policies which amplify wealth disparity to rates beyond the disparity between blacks and whites in Apartheid South Africa.

Mathematically, there will always be a 1%. Historically, they haven't always earned 20% of income. Historically, the top 20% hasn't always earned 50% of income. That's why the "Since 1975" observation is important.

"Most of the increase in household income was achieved in the period from 1970 to 2000. In these three decades, the median income increased by 41%, to $70,800, at an annual average rate of 1.2%. From 2000 to 2018, the growth in household income slowed to an annual average rate of only 0.3%. If there had been no such slowdown and incomes had continued to increase in this century at the same rate as from 1970 to 2000, the current median U.S. household income would be about $87,000, considerably higher than its actual level of $74,600." www.pewresearch.org

If the US median household income were about $13K higher, the US would have a much stronger economy. Despite your protestations to the contrary.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:03 PM | Reply

"You're also ignoring the unignorable fact that "laissez faire Capitalism and its contemporary reanimated corpse called neoliberalism" have created the wealthiest society this planet has ever known. And the freest."

You literally just said Texas isn't a liberal society.
So, where's this freedom?
Not in Texas.

Do you find this free society in Germany, then?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:04 PM | Reply

"And the freest."

We are the least free from global warming, of anyone who has ever existed.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:11 PM | Reply

Bruce, 46 was one hell of a rejoinder.
Sharp, succinct, factual, and destroyed the nonsense of a rationalization.

First, I'm not convinced that you're a liberal.
I'm sure I don't care what you believe.

Second, exactly how are progressive enfranchising anyone? Isn't that more of a constitutional thing? Do you know some way to add voters to rolls they otherwise wouldn't have been on?
Here's a few ideas:
Streamline voter registration
Make voter registration automatic
Allow same-day voter registration
Pre-register teenagers to vote before they turn 18.
Make voting more convenient through:
early voting
absentee voting
24 hour voting
Provide sufficient resources in elections - no more ridiculously long lines and hours to vote.
Ensure voting is accessible
Restore rights for the formerly incarcerated
Bring back and strengthen Civics education in schools
Fix gerrymandering
Ensure workers at the polls are non-partisan
Make sure I can vote safely
There are the things we on the left are constantly working on. Flies in the face of authoritarianism.

And you can see why someone might be wary about a political party than wanted to create a bunch of new voters, especially if that party were the one guiding them on their political journey.

See Bruces comment #46. I can't even begin to know where that crazy came from.

#58 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 01:28 PM | Reply

That should be:

"Flies in the face of authoritarianism.

And you can see why someone might be wary about a political party than wanted to create a bunch of new voters, especially if that party were the one guiding them on their political journey.

See Bruces comment #46. I can't even begin to know where that crazy came from."

So everyone's clear, I did not write that italicized part.

#59 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 01:30 PM | Reply

"Over the past 250 years classical liberalism has helped bring about unparalleled progress."

"has helped."
To listen to the fanbois, it was all classical liberalism.
Science, democracy, and literacy had nothing to do with it!

And that's why you guys are such insufferable blowhards. You have one hammer, and see everything as a nail.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 01:57 PM | Reply

Looks the the trio of all knowing is back together here on the DR

The "economist" and "constitutional expert", the "legal" and now "military expert", and the narcissist ------- with an Aristotle complex

#61 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-09-06 03:19 PM | Reply

#61 - Dammit!
Which one am I?
Am I one of those?
My FOMO is kicking in! :)

#62 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 03:45 PM | Reply

"Laisse-faire capitalism? You mean like Carnegie or the Triangle shirt factory. Yeah those folks created the middle class. Gimme a break. Gimme some truth."

I assume you meant the tragedy resulting from the Triangle ---------- Factory.

You wanna take a stab at the socialist success at the RBMK reactor at the #6 Vladimir Lenin Nuclear Power Plant?

It was literally named after one of your heroes...wanna dance?

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-06 04:00 PM | Reply

Snoofy.

"Something a racist would say.
Racism is taught. It's not innate."

That's a nice platitude but is it true?

www.sciencedaily.com

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We might do better combating racism if we dropped the platitudes and viewed the human animal the way it really is... A tribal creature.

#64 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

You again? Go back to sucking the Patriot's coach's balls.

#65 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-06 05:27 PM | Reply

"A tribal creature."

Okay.
If your tribe has a variety of colors in it, what does that do to racism?

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 05:57 PM | Reply

Do you have anything of value to add here legally?

Cuz so far you offer nothing of any more value than the --- on your mother's chin the day you were conceived in some drunken ---------

#67 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 06:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Snoofy you absolutely know you danced around the point to focus on the nuance of a word.

How about your thoughts on the actual point?

#68 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 06:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

I absolutely agree that humans are social animals.
That doesn't mean societies have to be racist.

From your third link, preferring own-race faces doesn't make you racist.
Racism is a construct of a society that excludes other races.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:13 PM | Reply

Three studies about infants.
Infants also aren't potty trained.
Should we not teach them better, are we denying human nature?
---- outta here with this nonsense.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:18 PM | Reply

Snoofy if we continue the racism is learned narrative we are basically saying that all we really need to do is not be racist at home and the next gen will be fine. If we admit that racism isn't learned, but that we naturally skew towards are own we can acknowledge that we have to actively steer our kids against something that used to be a survival mechanism and therefore against our natural instincts.

#71 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 06:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Snoofy if we continue the racism is learned narrative we are basically saying that all we really need to do is not be racist at home and the next gen will be fine."

At home, at work, in the courts, when policing neighborhoods, when writing mortgages...

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:21 PM | Reply

Oh. Your saying studying a human in a form that hasn't been "nurtured" yet in order to figure out our "nature" because of the status of where they poop isn't valid science?

Why don't you get the ---- outta here because that is the most absolute stupidest thing you have ever posted here.

#73 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 06:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If we admit that racism isn't learned, but that we naturally skew towards are own"

These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:23 PM | Reply

"Your saying studying a human in a form that hasn't been "nurtured" yet in order"

The infants under study were nurtured. By their parents and others in their communities.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:25 PM | Reply

72... none of that happens without acknowledging it's against our nature. I didn't learn to be racist so I can't be... while they continue on subconsciously supporting subtle systemic racism.

It would just kill you to admit we support the same thing here wouldn't it? But that racism is learned is nothing but a good sound, but untrue, soundbite.

#76 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 06:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"72... none of that happens without acknowledging it's against our nature."

So what?
We can't change human nature.
We can change human society.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:28 PM | Reply

"But that racism is learned is nothing but a good sound, but untrue, soundbite."

What's the alternative?

If human nature is racist, then you're racist, right?

Did you learn racism, or are you racist by nature?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:30 PM | Reply

"It would just kill you to admit we support the same thing here wouldn't it?"

I don't support saying racism in inevitable because human nature is racist.
What you're describing shouldn't' really be described as racism. It's bigotry.
To put it in the context of this discussion: Racism is when society can't think beyond the level of an infant. And doesn't even try to.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-06 06:33 PM | Reply

You're almost there... we're both saying we have to work at it. I'm saying it's harder than just learned...so.. we have to work even harder..

YAY. YOU DID IT you got there!!!

#80 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 06:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In the first study, the basic definition of the word "racism" is being conflated "racial bias" (Toronto study). They are not the same thing.
In the second article there is no discussion of racism.
The third study was the only one to accurately call out what was going on:
These results suggest that preferential selectivity based on ethnic differences is not present in the first days of life, but is learned within the first 3 months of life. The findings imply that adults' perceptions of ethnic differences are learned and derived from differences in exposure to own- versus other-race faces during early development.

An implication that isn't proved. There is no racism involved at this age. All that is going on is children prefer the comfort found in the faces of those that are caring for them. It is familiarity. It is an association. Black parent raising black babies, the babies will prefer black faces. Black faces represent safety, security, comfort, food, etc. Same for any child.

Trying to go from the above to racism being part of human nature is not borne out by any of the above studies.

racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized: a programme to combat racism.
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another: theories of racism.

#81 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-06 06:55 PM | Reply

Yav thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're correct I did mix bias and ism. I think though that society in general are conflating bias, ism, bigotry, etc.

My general point is that the hard to root out institutional racism is going to be hard and it's going to take us looking at our in born biases.

I'll use an example. If I interview Joe the white guy and Jake the black guy, and feel that Joe is the better candidate... Is it that he's really the better candidate? Or is it my reptile brain telling me Joe looks like me so he must be the better one to trust?

If I don't take the time to really think about why I want to hire Joe...

If it's really a deep seated bias, maybe over time I've hired less black people than stats would say I should have.... whats the headline? Kwrxco's hiring practices are biased
... or Kwrxco's hiring practices are racist?

So since these studies, as you point out, are about bias and not racism... given society using these terms more and more interchangeably and my example for hiring I think the studies still hold weight in the discussion of racism

To your point though, it does weaken using a study like this like racism isn't learned. Thanks for some rational discussion.

#82 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-06 09:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#82 ... I'll use an example. If I interview Joe the white guy and Jake the black guy, and feel that Joe is the better candidate... Is it that he's really the better candidate? Or is it my reptile brain telling me Joe looks like me so he must be the better one to trust? ...

If those are the questions you are asking of yourself after the interview, your interview process sucks.


#83 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-09-06 10:27 PM | Reply

If that's what you got from that your ability to read sucks. Read it slowly and you'll see I never said I ask myself a question.

Tip on making fun of a post... be close to being right. Otherwise you just look like a moron.

#84 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-07 01:53 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yav thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're welcome. The studies were interesting. I think I could design a better study. I'd like the race of those involved in the studies to be included. Evaluate reactions from mixed race couple or black babies being raised by white parents, and vice-versus, for instance.

I've seen bias from researchers injected into the conclusions and wording before. The one that was laughable to me was the Bottlenose Dolphin study where same-sex dolphin would enjoy sex with each other. In the original study the researchers did everything they could to not call it what it was. Now all that dancing around and excuse making for what was going on is laughable.

Do you remember the Doll Study?
www.naacpldf.org

#85 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-07 07:14 AM | Reply

Yav, I know it exists, but not more than passing glance at it quite a while ago.

#86 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2021-09-07 11:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Did you learn racism, or are you racist by nature?"

Did you learn classism, or are you classist by nature?

I think you done larnt it.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-08 03:43 PM | Reply

"That doesn't mean societies have to be racist."

How about classist?

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-09-08 03:46 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort