Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[AlexM]

Originally Posted by MissileDog

That's why I suggested that libertarians use the term "libertarian-racism" instead of just "racism" standing alone. Because this whole definition is entirely different than the various meanings that non-libertarians intend when we use the word "racist".

You're to free use your words anyway you want. Party on my libertarian friends, party on! But if you choose to use your own little patois, don't be surprised if nobody else can figure out what you are saying.

Originally Posted by ctyri

Yes, he is mostly correct above.

And that is why his articles like "The Disappearing White Majority" are so ugly and indefensible.

No, it's why that is clearly not his article. Racism is so wildly incompatible with the libertarian beliefs that it's impossible for the man to be racist. To call the man a racist is to say that absolutely everything the man had ever said and every belief he's ever claimed is a lie. It's to say that he isn't a libertarian at all but someone who is lying to the world in order to further a racist agenda. It's discounting millions of things he's said because of something he's linked to that he didn't even say himself. And that is just plain stupid.

[Klinker]

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

The Harvard Educational Review is not even a peer-reviewed journal.

This is false:

List of Peer Reviewed Education Journals

The Harvard Educational Review is a peer-reviewed academic journal of opinion and research dealing with education, associated with the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and published by the Harvard Education Publishing Group. The journal was established in 1930.

It's listed as peer-reviewed on a bunch of journal listings.

That's just the first of your post that caught my eye. Where did you get that nonsense?

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by AlexM

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” -Ron Paul

Originally Posted by abagond

Colour-blind racism (1970- ), also known as aversive racism, is racism that acts as if skin colour does not matter – even when it does. It is the most common form of racism among white Americans who grew up after the fall of Jim Crow...

Colour-blind racists say things like this:

It’s not race, it’s economics …
It’s not race, it’s culture …
It’s not race, it depends on a person’s background …
I’m not prejudiced, but …
I’m not black, but …
One of my best friends is black.
My cousin married a black man.
I voted for Barack Obama.
I don’t see you as black.

And believe things like this:

I am not racist.
Blacks are not willing to work hard.
Blacks want everything handed to them.
Blacks hold themselves back, not racism.
Blacks are unfairly favoured, whites are not.
Blacks do not want to live with us (or eat at our table).
Blacks live in the past. They need to get over it and move on.
Blacks need to pull themselves up from the bottom like everyone else.
Blacks cry racism for everything even though they are the racist ones.
Notice how white people never seem to do anything bad.

While they would agree with most of those statements, they would have a hard time saying them straight out like that...They seem to think that if they do not say the words then racism will somehow go away by magic. As if racism is just a matter of words.

They rarely think of themselves as “white” and avoid saying the word “black” in public, even when they are thinking it. Their supposed colour-blindness is a front... They avoid the word “race” too. Instead they use words like “culture”, “background”, “ethnicity”... They are not as colour-blind as they think. The only colour they are truly blind to is white.

This. Once again, I suggest that libertarians use the term "libertarian-racist" to refer to someone they consider "racist", instead of "racism" standing alone. That would clear up 90% of the confusion.

[Case Closed]

Originally Posted by AlexM

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” -Ron Paul

For some reason I don't think I am going to lend much credance to this guy's definition.

[ctyri]

Originally Posted by AlexM

Racism is so wildly incompatible with the libertarian beliefs that it's impossible for the man to be racist.

Empirical evidence suggests that your statement above is a fallacy. Unless you are honestly suggesting that no libertarians can be racist. In which case, you should tread very lightly since many of the heralded Founding Fathers of this free republic who wrote and said more volumes of libertarian-leaning, enlightened propaganda promoting the liberty of the individual than most anybody in politics before or since, literally kept black men in chains in their own backyard. But that couldn't have actually happened. Because it's impossible, as you say.

"Give me liberty or give me death!" ...we see much that supports the idea that Patrick Henry was a leading “radical” in the American revolution, one willing to give his life for freedom. He asserted such views in speeches and letters and was later a strong supporter of adding the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, there is also much irony. Henry counterposes “freedom” to “slavery” and repeatedly uses the metaphor of “slavery and chains” to describe conditions of white colonists. Yet, at this point in his life, the “freedom loving” Henry had been a major slaveholder for many years, and he left some 65 African Americans firmly enslaved at his death.

IMPOSSIBLE! Unless you somehow twist an argument to suggest Henry was no pro-Constitutional libertarian or not racist in any way. Good luck with that.

[Klinker]

Originally Posted by Klinker

This is false:

List of Peer Reviewed Education Journals



It's listed as peer-reviewed on a bunch of journal listings.

That's just the first of your post that caught my eye. Where did you get that nonsense?

Oh, lol. That's from a BIG JOURNALISM link. lol Yup, it is. lol

That must be from the Breitbart Big Government operation. lol

Well, their claim that the Harvard Educational Review is not peer-reviewed is point-blank false. Ahh, that stuff was written by someone called JunkScience Mom...lol

Who's that poker 2+2 dude? Boro Mom or something?

w/e...I don't have time for this now.

just lol tho...funny how that study has you guys doing cartwheels and somersaults...

[Max Raker]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

Are you suggesting it would be a bad idea to give full professorships at Harvard based on affirmative action?

I am not a full professor at Harvard so I obv don't have a say...but I imagine faculty will vote to give somebody tenure if and only if they can perform all the required duties ....most importantly research at a very high level. But of course those decisions are purely based on the individual...who likely has been a colleague of yours for multiple years. It's not like you are getting 1000 applicants who are strangers and you are going to accept 200 of them.

[Max Raker]

Originally Posted by spino1i

So max what is the argument people are making?
Because clearly I'm not sure what your talking about

Supporting affirmative action is not equivalent to letting slower white sprinters in the olympics. And the argument even if paul is a racist it doesn't matter because other people support AA is ridiculous.

[UnblinkingEye]

Originally Posted by ctyri

And that is why his articles like "The Disappearing White Majority" are so ugly and indefensible.

Can someone tell me what fact in that article is false? I ask because I'm of the opinion racism must be misleading, as well as hurtful. We're really treading on thin ice if we start censoring true claims with the race card because some overly sensitive group gets butthurt.

[MrWookie]

Originally Posted by UnblinkingEye

Can someone tell me what fact in that article is false? I ask because I'm of the opinion racism must be misleading, as well as hurtful. We're really treading on thin ice if we start censoring true claims with the race card because some overly sensitive group gets butthurt.

Did you read the article? Because the answer to your question is, "Pretty much everything, except for the empirically true claim that the white majority is shrinking."

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by AlexM

That's not a definition, it's a statement of fact based on the definition that everyone uses.

If its the definition that "everyone" uses, why can't the libertarians agree with most everyone else when they use the word "racist"? Do you truly believe everyone divides humans up into these strict groups of "collectivists" -vs- "individualists", or even use the this incoherent and LOLtastical dichotomy at all?

Originally Posted by AlexM

...Racism is so wildly incompatible with the libertarian beliefs that it's impossible for the man to be racist... It's to say that he isn't a libertarian at all but someone who is lying to the world in order to further a racist agenda...

So let me get this straight, you are claiming its logically impossible to be a libertarian and a racist at the same time? You know, like its logically impossible to be kinda pregnant.

And you do realize your dissembling again, don't you"? Repeat after me... Pointing out the fact that some racist trash was published under Dr.Paul's name is *not* the same as saying Dr.Paul is personally a racist. I mean, this catastrophic logic failure has gotta have a biological basis with youz guyz, like INTP or something.

Once again, I'm going to suggest that libertarians adopt the term "libertarian-racist" instead of just using the word "racist" in isolation. It would eliminate most of the misunderstandings about this on this BBS.

[AlexM]

Idk why that quoted md too.

[ctyri]

Originally Posted by UnblinkingEye

Can someone tell me what fact in that article is false? I ask because I'm of the opinion racism must be misleading, as well as hurtful. We're really treading on thin ice if we start censoring true claims with the race card because some overly sensitive group gets butthurt.

Did you not bother to read the preceding quote?

[AlexM]

Originally Posted by MissileDog

This. Once again, I suggest that libertarians use the term "libertarian-racist" to refer to someone they consider "racist", instead of "racism" standing alone. That would clear up 90% of the confusion.

Lol redherringstrawmanaments. Good job finding something that looked like it was what I was talking about for the firs three lines then quickly diverged into something else entirely and then pretending like it somehow backs up a point you're making that I easily discredited. You're a model Democrat.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by renodoc

this thread sucks.

could someone ban all the trolls for a day so the rest of us could read/participate here?

wookie, this would include you.

thanks

We could talk about what would happen if RP were president and managed to kill or seriously cut back Medicare, considering how you bemoan your fate like a Shakespearean tragic hero every time the Medicare rate cut come up before Congress.