Thursday, April 01, 2010

Questioning a Theory

(fm the BC thread "A Knife's Edge")

(we have the same law firm)
Points up to my #42.

(who reported a meeting on finding a home for the UN climate circus)
Soros at Downing Street? Aren't there EU warrants out on him? Given what he did to the UK £ they should drop him in a hole themselves.

Regular UN diplomats do not pay parking tickets and support the local working girls. Global warming delegates strike me as the type of back of the faculty lounge losers who stiff the dinner check and who couldn't get any if they walked into the woman's prison with a fistful of pardons.

Don Rodrigo,
(who mused on where to find sharks for Governors Island)
Salt water tides run for miles up the Hudson and the fresh flows out the other way as a tube before mixing into the sea. The Harbor is definitely salt.

(who said come the revolution I would be welcome)
Glad to know that when the SHTF I will have a spot on the team. Now I intend to work as hard as I can to avoid that eventuality.

It is all over. Finished. Kaput. Done.

You remain more lucid than the unlamented C-fud but you have three vices in your exposition that I want to address.

1. You assert things declaratively that even you subsequently know must be modified and recast as hypotheticals. If you really believed what you are saying then you would take counsel of your despair with results that I do not want you to explore. As a rhetorical trick this device does not strengthen your case.

2. You simplify complex group identities. The distinctions are not simply Black and White or even everybody else versus the Whites. Race baiters may want to cast things in that light in order to freeze alliances but it does not conform with the complexity of groups and potential alliances within, or most importantly across, broader identity groups. The Black vote is essentially monolithic and that is over time unsustainable because it does not conform to the underlying complexity, economically, religiously or in ethnic and immigrant history, of that community. The composition of other groups are even more complex. One thing that Socialism seeks to do is to simplify identities and atomize the individual to render them more predictable and pliant.

3. You generate confusion, despite your subsequent protestations to the contrary, as to whether your opinions are simply a projection of personal animus or an evaluation of the motivations of others and their likely conduct given those intentions. Your theory is if I understand you one that treats the racial spoils system as a fact necessitated by objective conditions that most in the majority will soon subscribe to. If I may suggest an alternative reading to you, it is possible to marshal the evidence to suggest that key elements, Obama and Wright and Ayers and many others on the Left on one side and a very few on the extreme Right, believe in your theory, whether or not it conforms with reality, and will treat others in a way that will provoke expected reactions in order to justify themselves. That is an easier case it seems to me to prove than what you say and does not expose you to the charge of internalizing a prejudice that can be ascribed to others.

Even man and women are more complex than the simple binomial interaction that you often postulate on. Racial and Class interest groups are far more complicated in America than those you predict will control events or those sketched out by a Community Organizer on a chalk board.

No comments: