Jim Devine writes:
>> Bizarrely (and I hope not disingenuously), David omits what I said
>> before the quoted passage, i.e., >> though there are racists
>> associated with the TP, I don't think the TP is itself racist. (And
>> there are racists associated with the DP, too. ...)<< Those sentences
>> are what "that said" refers to in the first quote from me above.
>>
>> That is, I was not trying to prove the thesis that the TP is racist. I
>> do not know where David got the idea that I was trying to do so.
You did initially say that the TP is not racist. But you then, presumably not
out of thin air, said "that said," and argued that the only reason you could
see why conservatives honor black conservatives is simply to avoid the racist
label, which implies that conservatives truly don't believe what they are
saying about black conservatives (i.e. they like them and respect them and
honor them). At minimum, that means you believe that the fact that
conservatives honor black conservatives is not evidence they are not racist,
which raises the question of what evidence would convince you conservatives are
not racists, and legitimately implies that you believe that the fact
conservatives honor "mediocrities" is evidence of racism.
>> > However, to the extent your criticism is based upon Sowell's mediocrity,
>> >that doesn't
>> work, because that is not how conservatives think of Sowell. Sowell has
>> been a public
>> intellectual for more than 30 years and nobody on the conservative side
>> thinks of
>> Sowell as a mediocrity, or that they are condescending to Sowell by reading
>> his
>> articles and books.<
>>
>> The conservatives probably don't _see_ Sowell as mediocre (and they'd
>> never admit to doing so). Their adulation of him ("wow, a Black man
>> who toes our Party Line!") has been taken to heart: "Oh, he must be
>> good, since we've been saying so for so long." One of the most common
>> political phenomena (afflicting Leftists too, alas) is believing one's
>> own propaganda.
For the record, I think you are completely wrong on Sowell. He is the favorite
public intellectual for many conservatives/libertarians precisely because he is
so good at expressing clearly the desired sentiment, not because he is black.
I do not think the feeling toward him is self-deception.
>> David: > With respect to Thomas on the Court, no different than Obama
>> appointing Sotomayor.<
>>
>> But Sotomayor is much much more qualified for the position (by
>> mainstream corporate standards!) than Thomas is.
Totally wrong. Sotomayor was generally perceived as an average/below average
judge of (relatively) limited intellectual scope. She would never have been
considered for the position if she was not a woman and Puerto Rican. Thomas,
on the other hand, was considered not simply because he was black, but because
he was a black intellectual conservative -- i.e. that those appointed him
believed him to be a smart advocate for a developed legal philosophy.
>> Carroll Cox also writes: >I don't see, really, why people bother to answer
>> D.S.<
>>
>> I guess CC doesn't have to talk to people who disagree with him very
>> often. Or maybe he doesn't feel he has to deign to convince them that
>> his viewpoint makes sense. Unfortunately, I swim in a sea of very
>> conservative people (of different stripes). So it's good practice to
>> try to convince David. It's not because I expect him to burn his
>> libertarian party card. Instead, like all my e-missives, I aim to talk
>> to other readers, who may not be convinced or needs intellectual
>> ammunition.
I have been on this list for 12 years. I find most of the members of this list
smart and interesting and worth reading. On the other hand, I waited 12 years
for Carroll to say something interesting enough for me to ask him a question.
I presume it will be another 12 years before he says something again that
interests me.
David Shemano
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
