Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I reply, cautiously, just to answer a few points. > > [Platt] > 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. > > [Arlo] > When did I say such things _never_ occur. But I think, based on my > humble observations in the real world, that the incidences of > "competent blacks" being denied opportunity because of the color of > their skin far outnumbers the cases where "competency" alone > overcomes racial barriers.
My humble observations indicate the opposite. In the business world and in college acceptances, blacks step to the head of the line because of the color of their skin. > I also dispute the idea that xenophobia is "human nature". Rather > than looking at people who have overcome "fear" as being somehow > exceptional, I believe instead the people who continue to pander to > racial fear to be deceived by ideological propaganda. >From an article in "Psychology Today:" "That fear, known as xenophobia, seems almost hardwired in the human psyche." I call that "human nature." http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030501-000001.html > [Platt] > 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. > > [Arlo] > Well, that's the right-wing schtick. But the reality is that many > individuals belonging to these "groups" do face prejudice and lack of > opportunity that can prevent them from becoming successful without > good people stepping in and ensuring that "competence" is truly the > only measure of success in any endeavor. When you can tell me that > any woman, of any color, can buy any house, and her success in doing > so has nothing to do with the pigment in her skin, then I will tell > you the time for "racial preferences" is past. > > This is not "patronizing", nor "insulting", but recognition of the > prejudice and xenophobia that places unfair barriers around many. Well, that's the left-wing schtick. > [Platt] > 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. > > [Arlo] > I'm going to have to come up with a name for this. "Feigned > obliviousness", perhaps. Better names: "Tough love" and "Benign neglect." >We had many conversations about "welfare" in > the past, and I've been the first to suggest that there are abuses > and unintended consequences in the present system. And these need to > be addressed and the system needs serious reform. But I find nothing > "immoral", indeed I find it moral and beneficial, for society to > create and implement a safety net to ensure that those hit by hard > situations have access to support while the rebuild, reorient and > find new labor. I find nothing "immoral" in individuals freely of their own volition supporting charities with a record of effectiveness. I think it immoral to throw good money after bad. (Also, see Emerson's comments about the "poor" in his essay on "Self Reliance.") > [Platt] > 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? > > [Arlo] > No, there is no satisfaction in being poor, and a loss of agency is > always accompanied by shame and depression. But rather than vilify > the poor for being "lazy and stupid", I prefer to scaffold them until > they are in a position to reclaim their agency. There is truly no > shame in finding oneself in dire straits. Even the best of people can > find themselves suddenly without labor, without insurance, and their > life-savings gone. Working to get these people back on their feet, > and autonomous again, should be the goal of the social safety net. People have the choice to save for a rainy day and acquire insurance for catastrophic acts of God. It's called "individual responsibility," a word you don't hear very often from the left. > [Platt] > ... a civil tongue is obviously not one of your strong points. > > [Arlo] > You are the only one here who could accuse me of this. And no, I lack > the desire to be civil when confronted with ongoing distortions and > deceptive rhetoric at every turn. Maybe you should ask yourself why I can have perfectly normal conversations with others here without vitriol. One need only look at leftist-leaning blogs to see that many liberals speak in the voice of outrage, agressiveness and moral certainty. If the shoe fits . . . > Now are we done? You are the one who keeps initiating these debates. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
