Hanging out in the country

By -
Where, as Noah Smith tells us, we white people go so that we need not have any contact with nonwhites.

Man, somehow I haven't quite got the hang of this country thing yet:



Comments

  1. Anonymous11:27 PM

    Hello Gene, long time reader of your blog and huge fan, but I think you are over generalizing some of Noah's points here. He did preface it with:

    "Warning: Contains oversimplified history, sketchy data, and sweeping generalizations."

    From my experience living in the south (I currently live in Georgia), some conservatives do have a racist flavor to them. The jokes I hear, the racist slurs that are used, and don't even get me started on their drunken rants on "those god damn lazy n*%?ers!" So I do think there is SOME truth to what he wrote, as I hear some conservatives white people make arguments that Noah highlighted. Plus I doubt that Noah really thinks that all, or even many, white people that have left the inner city (i.e. "White Flight") are racist, as you elude to in this and several other posts.

    Anyway, my main point is that this has all been anecdotal. Your experience involving white people and racism has been a lot different than mine, and I don't think experience is the best way to approach this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:39 AM

      Curiousleftist, thanks for your thoughtful post. I certainly don't doubt the existence of white racism. I've heard these jokes and slurs myself, Sometimes in the very bar in which I took that picture from last week.

      But isn't a very problem with racism that it seeks to stereotype a whole group of people from some behavior sometimes exhibited by a few of them? My complaint about Smith's post Is precisely that does exactly that: Stereotypes a whole group of people based on some traits that some of them sometimes display. This seems an ineffective and not particularly nice way to combat racism. Aren't "over hasty generalizations" Exactly what racists are guilty of

      Delete
    2. gcallah1:47 AM

      Sorry, "sweeping generalizations."

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2:44 AM

      Ok, I re-read Noah's post a little more closely, and I see where you are coming from now. I admit, after re-reading, I'm a bit confused on the issue now, as I don't know if Noah's being his jokey self when he's making his claims or if he actually believes in the "sweeping generalizations" he's making.

      I still think the fact that he clearly knows he's making "sweeping generalizations" and mentions it in the preface says a lot, and I don't think he actually believes that most conservatives are like the way he elaborately paints them in the subsequent paragraphs. I also think that this paragraph is a bit telling

      Each of these points relies on a mix of evidence and personal anecdotal observation. All are to some degree speculative. None is 100% proven. There are counterarguments to each. Maybe good counterarguments. The failure of Conservative White America is not anywhere near as clear as the failure of the Medieval European system was by the time of the Battle of Nicopolis.

      I think he knows he exaggerating about "Conservative White America".

      Then again, I can't read minds. I'm probably reading too far in between the lines, and you could very well be right. In that case, I take back my previous comment.

      Delete
  2. Bob Murphy11:48 PM

    Man, Noah really bothered you didn't he?

    This might cheer you up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:24 AM

      God What an awful post. The minister who says to a gay couple "I can't marry you; But why not go down to the justice of the peace, because he will?" is a bully? That did not cheer me up in the least.

      Delete
    2. Gabe Ruth4:01 PM

      I'm guessing Bob means you can stop trusting Mr. Smith's sincerity. You should never trust anyone with such a simple model of the universe, whether it's one you're sympathetic to or not.

      Delete
  3. Wabulon7:08 PM

    Did I ever post "Heisenberg Principle in Mississippi" here? If I have not, I really should. Gene?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:01 PM

      You did.
      http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2011/02/heisenberg-principle-in-mississippi.html

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more