On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:40:58 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>  On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>      It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a non-faithful 
>> sample of a population is to bias any possible prediction. Why are you 
>> focusing on some partition of some equivalence class: "white, green, pink, 
>> yellow, purple, black,... or "latino, texano, letivo, ... or what ever some 
>> finite list you can come up with to be "a faithful sample" of Reality? I am 
>> not interested in any proclamation by a person or whatever that cannot 
>> possibly be true!
> I don't understand the complexity. The US is the richest country because 
> it had vast natural resources, slaves and immigrants to extract them, and 
> relatively no real political threats on any geographic side. Is that not 
> true? The beneficiaries of that wealth are almost exclusively white 
> Europeans with many customs and values in common. Many who did not benefit 
> from that prosperity were also white Europeans but disproportionately they 
> were not. Is that controversial?
> Hi Craig,
>     What about the Chinese, 

You mean the indentured servant Chinese that were worked to death building 
the railroads?

> or, the Icelanders or the natives of Bora Bora, are they exempt from a 
> debt of social justice to some group of people currently living merely 
> because they had ancestors that had vast natural resources, slaves and 
> immigrants to extract them, and relatively no real political threats on any 
> geographic side.

That's up to them. Scandinavia is hugely privileged I would say, Bora Bora 
natives, I would guess not so much. It's not about deciding who else has to 
be moral for you to be moral, it's just about acknowledging that if you are 
a black male in America you are six times more likely to go to prison than 
a white male - and that this fact is not because white males don't break 
the law as much as black males.

> It depends of the measure of "vast". What difference should it make where 
> one is from or what one's particular ancestors are when we can arbitrarily 
> define some past behavior of that class of people to have been criminal in 
> a retroactive way? If one looks hard enough, any class of people has been 
> victimized by some other! This fact makes the entire thesis of social 
> justice<https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=thesis+of+social+justice&oq=thesis+of+social+justice&gs_l=hp.12..0i22.2231.2231.0.6976.,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.eWU&fp=dbbeaa135e1ac0b0&bpcl=39967673&biw=1120&bih=596>fall
>  apart at the seams.

This is 100% bogus talking points. Look at the statistics. Listen to what 
actual people say. If you are wearing your ancestry on your face, police 
look at you different. They pull you over for no reason. They question you 
on the street. Who other world for non-whites in the US. Don't get me 
wrong, I'm not saying that it surprises me or that non-whites are better 
than whites and made saintly by the baggage of being a minority in the US, 
I'm just saying that if you can't see that it is clearly a different an 
unequal world for people of color (POC), then you're kidding yourself.

I gotta go to sleep but I'll leave you with Louis CK talking about being 
white as my last word tonight: He says it better than I could.  


>  Or are you saying it's true but meaningless?
>     I am saying that it is "not even wrong". What I am saying is that 
> arguments that assume any sort of revisionistic or reverse determinism must 
> be treated very carefully. They are allowed under very special 
> circumstances, such as those that Mitra talks about, but in general 
> situations, not at all.
> -- 
> Onward!
> Stephen

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to