Pro-life terrorism in the US

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Philidor

Is that the same Aidan Rankin who joined UKIP but "found a bleak world of bigots who hated foreigners, gays and Muslims" and descibes his fliration with right-wing politics as "soul-theft"?

The very same. Rankin is a true intellectual maverick (at a somewhat higher level than Aric Sigman). He's been involved in a kind of conservative environmentalism, and also has a keen interest in Jainism.

It's worth tracing his articles on the Internet, and especially worth reading his book (which Balthasar, who clearly hasn't and probably won't, has parodied so feebly).

It's a great shame that his public profile isn't higher. He would be a wonderful guest on Question Time or The Moral Maze. But I suspect that the powers that be regard him as too much of a loose cannon.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Philidor

Is that the same Aidan Rankin who joined UKIP but "found a bleak world of bigots who hated foreigners, gays and Muslims" and descibes his fliration with right-wing politics as "soul-theft"?

Please, that's Doctor Aidan Rankin, whose maverick intellect seems intent on defending the historically-downtrodden white male against persecution by the all-powerful Leftist Conspiracy:

"The left, and many bien pensant liberals and Tories with them, would like us to visualise fascists as aggrieved, poorly educated working class whites - white males in particular, since they are a double negative for the Politically Correct. Such progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion."

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Scott Good

Gosh, I must be so naive to think that kindness and care for others feelings and respect for both their culture and individuality are important and have daily impact on peoples lives!

Oh, please, Scott, don't get petulant. I never suggested that it's not a good thing to be civil to one another. But racism isn't wrong because it makes people feel bad. It's wrong because it excludes people from positions of influence in their communities. Changing these conditions involves enacting laws against discrimination in the workplace, voting booth, schools, etc. "Calling people on their racist language" is purely cosmetic.

I thought another tenants (sic) of the political correctness movement was "Affirmative Action". Are you implying the state should intervene in business and create racial quotas?

Well, yeah. At least admit, Scott the Anarchist, that quotas have done a lot more than censorship to eradicate inequities in society. Aggrieved white folks have no recourse to complain that minorities are getting their jobs or loans, because they don't have a "right" to a certain job or a bank's money. However, you seem to ignore the fact that they do have a right to free speech.

I learned about discriminatory language in my school through various means (including music classes), and it quite an impact on me. It made me think deeply about what words and contexts of words could be exclusionary, and that we are born into a culture with deeply rooted sexist and racist ideas and terminology.

It's unfortunate that your education didn't give you a keener understanding of our culture's deeply rooted sexist and racist institutions and practices. These systemic inequities are more than just "memes," amigo, they're legal, political, and corporate policies. And changing them is what makes society more equitable.

[Scott Good]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Oh, please, Scott, don't get petulant. I never suggested that it's not a good thing to be civil to one another. But racism isn't wrong because it makes people feel bad. It's wrong because it excludes people from positions of influence in their communities. Changing these conditions involves enacting laws against discrimination in the workplace, voting booth, schools, etc. "Calling people on their racist language" is purely cosmetic.

The reason I am getting petulant is you keep mocking me.

First, how does someone get into a position of power in a free society? Well, they are voted in with an electorate or money/power. So no matter how many rights someone has, they need to be accepted, which is all in the minds of the people.

Why do you argue this? It seems bloody obvious to me.

Second, what I am talking about is not just about calling people on their racist language, but that the everyday use of the English language is tainted with racist and sexist terms and sayings.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Well, yeah. At least admit, Scott the Anarchist, that quotas have done a lot more than censorship to eradicate inequities in society. Aggrieved white folks have no recourse to complain that minorities are getting their jobs or loans, because they don't have a "right" to a certain job or a bank's money. However, you seem to ignore the fact that they do have a right to free speech.

To be clear, I am not an Anarchist - I am a ????ist. I just like to look at ideas, and try to find some insight in them. Anarchism as political philosophy has much wisdom. So does Marxism, and Capitalism, and Socialism and ya di da di da.

At any rate, the argument goes like this: There is a job, 2 people apply, the lesser qualified one gets the job because of the colour of their skin, the other gets upset by this, the one who got the job will may feel that they didn't deserve the job, and only got it because of the colour of their skin, and will feel both resentment and/or false authority - ergo, we have a racially divisive issue.

On the other hand, the argument goes: If we, for a short period, equal the playing field in terms of visible minorities by using a quota system, then all will become accoustomed to seeing visible minorities doing these jobs, it will be normalized (for both sides), and the quota hiring can be disbanded once the adjustment has settled.

It is a tough fence to sit on, and I can see validity on both sides. But ultimately we need to find a place where this is not necessary - that is the goal.

But none of this is about rights, really, it is about ideas and freedom. Does the state have the right to tell people who they should hire? I think not. Does the proprietor have the right to hire based on race? Well, yes if you believe in "Affirmative Action", and that just doesn't sit well with me, even if it's intentions are for the greater good. But I can see why it is done.

I think things like this need to be under the radar to be effective. So the state should stay as clear as possible from private enterprise. However, I do think that state jobs, especially the police, should have quota hiring loosely based on the demographics of their jurisdiction. Since these are positions of social authority, they should try to reflect the society. It would serve them best as well since they would have the appearance of a non prejudicial institution.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

It's unfortunate that your education didn't give you a keener understanding of our culture's deeply rooted sexist and racist institutions and practices. These systemic inequities are more than just "memes," amigo, they're legal, political, and corporate policies. And changing them is what makes society more equitable.

Oh please, I gave you 2 sentences about my education, and you think I have given you the whole story? Come on, who is the petulant one?

I never once said anything what-so-ever to deny the history of the rights movement. In fact, I think I have given it much praise - I mean, of course!!! It's a little different in Canada, though. Our perspective is not the same. Lots of similarities, though. More than many Canadians want to accept.

However, I did go to University for 4 years in the US, and got a taste of how history is taught there. What I know for sure is that history is not a solid object, it is a subjective analysis from a smattering a data. It can be looked at in many different and opposing ways. This has been know for millenia. St Augustine wrote some interesting this about this subject that influenced the composer Bernd Alois Zimmermann (bring it back to BC...).

You like to look closely at rights movements! Great!! I'm suggesting that looking at language could also be insightful! Great?!?

Does it have to be either/or?

And I believe that to just lump sayings like "Political Correct" and "Liberal Elitism" is bi-partisan foolery that separates people into tidy little groups, and denies critical thought, just like left and right thinking. That was the main reason I brought all this up anyways.