> [Platt] > Nor do I agree with your follow up statement that "competence of many > blacks is not a factor in their success," suggesting many blacks who are > successful are not competent. > > [Platt then] > Can't calmly explain why your statement "the competence of many blacks is > not a factor in their success" doesn't mean what it obviously says. > > [Arlo] > Are you [EMAIL PROTECTED] kidding me?
No, I am not &^%#@ kidding you. What you should have written to make yourself understood is: Many competent blacks have been prevented from succeeding because of prejudice." > For reference I've included the dialogue, with both of your moronic > distortions below. > > What I am saying, as I am sure everyone knows, is that competent blacks > often do not succeed due to the racist, xenophobic "skin-color" bias of > bigots. No, not "everyone knows." That's exactly what you should have said in the first place to forestall any misunderstanding. But now you have clarified your original statement. Fine. That's what normal people do in normal conversation. > The woman who wanted to buy the house, in my personal example, was > competent, had the means, was a _good_ person, but whether or not she > "attained" the house had nothing to do with her competence, it had > everything to do simply with the amount of pigment in her skin. > > For an added moronic twist, you yourself spew the exact same position in > your email you accuse me of. To wit: > > [Platt accuses Arlo] > Nor do I agree with your follow up statement that "competence of many > blacks is not a factor in their success," suggesting many blacks who are > successful are not competent. > > [Then Platt says] > I know blacks who have been promoted over whites simply because of their > skin color. > > [Arlo continues] > And I bet the number of whites promoted over blacks because of their skin > color is tenfold, nay a hundredfold, the few examples you may cite. As I > said, you seem to think a Utopic World exists where "competence" is all > that matters in social and labor decisions. When we get _there_, we can > forgo attempts to balance, even slightly, the scales. What I emphasize which you apparently are completely blind to are the people of competence, regardless of color, who, because of their competence, overcome all obstacles and become successful. What you say is true in some cases. What I say is true in other cases. What I think is wrong is to assume that any adult group needs my help or yours to be successful. That simply patronizing and insulting. > [Platt spews some more moronic propaganda] > To treat the poor with compassion and assistance, blacks or otherwise, is > to imply that they can't help themselves. > > [Arlo] > Power and agency are not solely the result of individual effort. Providing > training assistance and scaffolding should be part of the solution. But > there are depths to which people, good people, sink that are often no fault > of their own and impossible to transcend from without someone helping, > whether its providing some food while the family seeks further employment, > providing assistance in job retraining when an area is hit with massive > labor unemployment, covering medical expenses for the child as a family is > inbetween jobs, etc. Sure, there are certain situations where your helping someone can give them a hand out of a temporary bad situation. But the risks inherent in huge bureaucratic welfare programs are 1) creating dependency, 2) enabling destructive behavior, and 3) building resentment among those being "helped" due to the patronizing, holier-than-thou attitude of do- gooders. Very few people find satisfaction in being "needy." Consequently, to restore their sense of control, they find many creative ways to game the system. Haven't you been reading any of SA's posts? So to sum up, what I am saying is that most people, including members of any persecuted group, regardless of color, are competent to overcome barriers to success. To suggest otherwise is not only demeaning but puts up yet another roadblock of low expectations. As for "moronic distortions," "moronic twists," and "moronic propaganda," a civil tongue is obviously not one of your strong points. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
