No, no I don't. This is a bad example. There are tons of people that want to get rid of circumcisions because they think it's barbaric. Now, if you wanted a law that said it must be done in a hospital by a surgeon, then you'd be on to something.


As for crack v. powder - there's one sure fire way to avoid having this as a problem.

It's not just about money/investment in students. It's also about how people feel about investing in society, what kind of returns they realistically expect. The conditional proposition "if I do well I will be rewarded in some loose approximation to my contribution in terms of common utility" has never been absolutely true for anyone, but it's always carried a much, much higher likelihood for whites than blacks. It is still painfully evident that whites and blacks are offered a different social contract.

Young black people see relatives and people they know try to conform to the stated requirements, seemingly do so, and still end up nowhere anyone wants to be. How would you interpret seeing you brother getting a public relations degree, not being able to get a job anywhere in any related field, and then seeing that the woman who tweeted "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get aids. Just kidding I'm white!" was not just some low level idiot but a PR executive? You can't even get one turn at bat, but white people who have zero talent (the tweet absolutely proves) are promoted up the chain at young ages. What people see in adult outcomes can destroy incentive, and incentives matter. Any economist of any political persuasion will tell you that. The racism isn't just in the preparation for some non-racist real world. The racism is in the post-education career landscape and has a massive impact on incentive.

Ok fine substitute your law. There could be non-racist reasons to ban circumcision and there are some people who make a sincerely non-racist argument for that law. So it's not necessarily the case that any and all such laws would be racist. But it could be and in the event it was it would be racist without mentioning race.

No, I do not have to assume that.

Interesting that you reply to my post, repeating the same things said before, but without answering my questions that you quoted. Makes your post pretty pointless.

This is a bunch of run-on gibberish with no suggestions for improving things that I can find.

I definitely believe female circumcision should be banned.
Of course, it is only practiced by people of non-western religions who are not white. So I guess that would be a racist law, and I'm a horrible racist person.

I needed a writing intensive credit so I was going to take a writing intensive cultural anthropology class online and the first paper was on fgm...dropped that class before it started, no thanks.

I'm not certain if this is what you meant, but the practice is so horrifying that I would not want to write a paper about it either.

Yeah. I'm just not able to think about blood and gore and things of that nature. Like back when TLC had that show Operation where they would just show surgeries, I couldn't watch it because I internalize stuff like that too much.

A law can be racist in it's conception and/or in it's enforcement. If a legitimate law is enforced differentially with respect to race you fix that by fixing the enforcement problem, not by repealing the law. The thing about, for example, the anti-marijuana laws that targeted Mexican immigrants 100 years ago, the reason they were racist laws, is they provided no value to the community other than gratification of racial animus. And these laws didn't have to mention Mexicans by name to be racist.

Is it possible that it's not gibberish but that you just don't understand it? You're invited to share your thoughts on incentive, racism, and the relevant conceptions of social contract theory. A major assumption baked into most of the preceding discussion is that if you craft a black person in the right way as a child, with sufficient amount of investment, they will be successful or not based on their merit. That happens to be a false assumption and that being a false assumption has a lot of implications.

I will get banned for this but I dont really care. 2 plus 2 doesnt matter much to me these days. So lets go::

The book you want is written by Matthew Lohmeier. It is called "Irresistible Revolution".

It explains it all and it cost me my user account to even bring it up.

Never heard of the book or author but spending 15 seconds looking at the Amazon write-up, and I don't think that's getting you banned. It did get previous poster banned, but we're under new moderation now.

All that being said, it's still capitalists pushing all this.

I definitely didn't understand the run-on sentences, but I'm pretty sure I would have found any suggestions on how to improve the situation.

I don't know where you think that assumption was baked into anything.

Your post 152 above did not quote any previous post so I don't know what you were replying to or why you made the points you did.

Ha you think anyone cares about that dumb crap? I bet you do. You think like therein lies the truth that can spread like a virus and those in power know it and that's why they censor it!

Listen dude, no one remotely close to power in this country is a Marxist. AOC? Not a Marxist. Obama? Not a Marxist, not even close. Obama sacrificed people for predatory lenders, a rabid capitalist through and through. In fact, you have to get into almost rarefied spaces to even bump into people on the Left who have any grounded understanding of Marxism. You can go to a Bernie Sanders rally, or any Lefty hipster bar in a major city that serves vegan chili, and maybe 1 in 40 people know the ABCs of Marxism, let alone are doing anything to effect it. You have to go to a Green Party event to talk to an actual Marxist. There is like a standing ban on the Green candidate from Democratic party presidential debates.

Where are these military people getting the idea that we are under a Marxist invasion? And are they aware of where that term "cultural Marxism" comes from? You might not pickup on it, but that term is a signifier among the more "educated" on the Right for antisemitism. And why does some guy who is driving a plane around get it in his head that he had the grand synthesizing structural critique of modern society? And it says the author is an active in the Air Force on some missile warning team. That's just great. We need paranoid idiots telling us when the bombs are coming.

My sentences are fine. I was responding to the recent exchanges at large. There is an obvious presumption, in this discussion and most every discussion on racism, that the problem (no matter whose fault it is) is that there is something wrong with black people and if we can help them conform then things will be look as they should, as some kind of race neutral or post racist society. I was trying to point on some dynamics showing how it's not that simple.

You use capitalist as a bad word, and I'm to understand that Marxism is a false threat. Right.

Well these capitalists are the "competition is sin" variety, which would be bad.

But yeah-- the actual real Marxists hate CRT. Look into people like Walter Benn Michaels or Adolph Reed Jr for their thoughts on these sorts of issues for some perspective there.

This piece would be a good start. The political economy of antiracism

Why do actual real Marxists hate CRT?

Because they want to focus on class issues and believe that CRT is a vehicle for "racialization", which only serves to divide and not unite.

Identity politics in general aren't really for Marxists.

What's the class focused only solution that will stand the test of time? For the curious and cynical contingent

I don't know. I'm not sure there is one.

Ok, so the Marxists are only focused on dividing people by class. I was thinking there was some other radical ideology that focused on dividing people by race, and they had this idea that one race was really terrible and historically made things bad for another race or something, and these historical wrongs should be righted even if other people don't like it. But I can't remember what it is now......

The Marxists are focused on uniting people by class, not dividing them on class.