“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.“ Thomas Sowell

submitted by [deleted] from specials-images.forbesimg.com

all 55 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]RuckFeddit 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

Sowell also writes on racial topics and is a critic of affirmative action and race-based quotas.[20][21] On the topic of affirmative action, Sowell has stated:

One of the few policies that can be said to harm virtually every group in a different way… Obviously, whites and Asians lose out when you have preferential admission for black students or Hispanic students—but blacks and Hispanics lose out because what typically happens is the students who have all the credentials to succeed in college are admitted to colleges where the standards are so much higher that they fail.[22]

I've been bringing up affirmative action on reddit for years as a tangible example of structural racism. Guess how many discussions that lead to?

Gotta read more from this guy, thanks OP.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (35 children)

No you shouldnt read more of this guy. Sowell is a reagan republican, so even if there is some consistency on the affirmative action issue, everything else he does is lapdog, like clarence thomas.

You do not get a syndicated column in the united state as a black person for representing the interests of black people, just ask martin luther king jr.(proven assassinated by the us govt)

In a way sowell is the jordan peterson of black people, "personal responsibility man, personal responsibility"

I remember when I was in los angeles in 2011, driving to work I would see billlboards with Thomas Sewell, Bill Cosby and Condoleeza Rice on them for some kind of pep talk/rally for black people, which I find disgusting.

https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/05/25/bravo-for-bill-cosby-n871455 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052504.asp

https://archive.is/NkTTA (because this is certainly at risk of being taken down) https://archive.is/9FZZ8

Also this entire post is a race war bait thread.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

You're engaging in exactly the type of behaviour that brought to saidit in the first place, trying to discredit someone personally rather than discredit their ideas or the consequences of their ideas. Guilt by association is the basis of all prejudice, so why don't you address the ideas instead of engaging in smears. You're essentially being racist (in the racial prejudice sense rather than the postmodern racism is a belief system sense). Sowell couldn't possibly be where he is based on merit could he?

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (28 children)

Everything about your response is in bad faith, respond to my actual arguments and then I will maybe take you seriously.

My rejection of sewell, and this out of nowhere sewell praise thread, is not a personal attack, I am attacking what he says, and I am not saying it is guilt by association, they were not in a picture together, they took part in movement activities together, rallies, writing articles in defense of one another.

So either you are being unintelligent intentionally or not, remains to be seen.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

It is a personal attack. You're judging him based on his associations. That's guilt by association. So what if he's a republican, do you honestly believe all republicans are wrong or evil? And of course someone with views compatible with a publication could be black. Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist, his views weren't compatible, should he have been given the column? You're looking at everything through a lens that sees groups in order to ignore beliefs which is exactly why you wouldn't have been given the column but Sowell would.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

No I am judging him based on his words on the record in support of bill cosbys sick attitude towards black people, his participation in large scale public events with bill cosby and condoleeza rice.

This is not a photo of them together at a party, they are part of the same poltiical movement of black republicans, which includes Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, the shucky ducky guy, none of whom are representative of black people, and all of whom who have said and done a lot of things to repress, undermine, misrepresent and blame black people for problems that are not their fault.

As well as support the republican agenda, which is against all poor people of all colors, and frequently sends them to die in pointless military actions.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Listen, you can continue to play a game like a teenager's popularity contest, or you can treat arguments based on their individual merit. Until you understand the difference you're a waist of my time.

Edit: typo (and I bet you wish you could ban me now, don't you?)

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

On the debate pyramid I refuted your points, you cannot just say that is "a game" or that I am not evaluating the merits and magically turn bullshit into reality.

You are being worse than a teenager, "i know you are but what am i " is literally a child's game.

I will probably have to block you becaues not a single thing you have said in this thread demonstrates any interest in the topic or even your own stated positions.

Lookup the word "mendicant" in my book, that is what you are, and I will probably have to block you, but at this point in this thread, I am going to make an example of you to demonstrate how much work people will do to put lipstick on a pig.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I'm just replying to inform you that I'm not reading your comments. You're an idiot if you think I don't understand what you're doing. Add disingenuousness, feigning ignorance and being pedantic to the pyramid. You could shorten it to 'trolling' (the original definition meaning trying to provoke an angry response). Quitting the drugs/alcohol and self reflection will help your depression.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

shill tactic: "take your meds"

shill tactic: "what are you smoking, you must be on drugs etc"

shill tactic: "i am not even reading what you say anymore"

shill tactic: "youre an idiot"

shill tactic: mirroring my argument strat even if it is incoherent hoping no one will take the time to analyze

shill tactic: i know you are but what am i, like 5 times now ITT

shill tactic: gaslighting, doing infuriating things to provoke an overreaction, then attacking the overreaction

shill tactic: make a front page post about a divisive racial figure then just stir shit in every comment

shill tactic: weaponized conflation, calling my earlier accusation that sewell is a major supporter of bill cosby the same as guilt by association when those are two very different things

edit: There are more, i may keep adding to the list.

Keep responding, you are an interesting fish indeed, worthy of study

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You and /u/MrObvious both have terrific points up to this point in the conversation, but you are both so similar you can't see the forest through the trees. Sometimes there is only one correct answer and sometimes there are MANY diverse and perfectly valid views. It's a shame you guys keep getting defensive sliding into criticizing the other's "tactics" and such. I would like to see more discussions between you two if you could just be civil and respectful.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I think you replied to the wrong comment.

    [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    You really think the thomas sewell debate is at this moment in time worthy of front page news on saidit?

    Me being here and telling you that is silly and pointing out he is a major cosby supporter going way back, is the only thing making this entire thread interesting.

    As for your "prove to me there is structural racism against black people", you should start a whole new post with that as now that is off topic.

    And race war bait, obviously.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Crad 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Dude you really out here expect others to link you articles on something so obvious cuz youre too lazy to google it yourself? Are you playing dumb or you just born yesterday? lol

      [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I guess that is one way of admiting you lost and have no further ideas how to support your failed position.

      [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      " Sowell couldn't possibly be where he is based on merit could he? "

      The system is certainly racist. However they do permit tokens to take places of prominence, ie. OJ Simpson (before he was framed), Obama, etc. This gives the illusion that the system is not as racist as many believe.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The system isn’t a sentient being, it neither allows nor prevents anything. The systemic thinking that dominates social sciences (which aren’t sciences) is an example of magical thinking. Systems have knowable structures that can be identified such as laws. Social sciences have invented ‘societal structures’ that allow them to frame history according to political biases. It’s why ‘left’ media is constantly reframing anything the ‘right’ believes in as racist etc. The ‘right’ actually understands societal structures because they create them by engaging in capitalism. The ‘left’ reframes the ‘rights’ intentions because they don’t like the outcomes and refer to ‘structures’ as abstractions because otherwise they would have to deal with them using the ‘rights’ definitions etc.

      [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      The system is set up by people to be racist, intentionally. If you think what Bill Clinton did in the 90s was accidental you are sadly mistaken. The more they push diversity in the media with tokens to show how fair they are, the reality is that it's getting much worse for many communities. The race thing is as phony as the left right divide, yet the results are very real.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I agree that those pushing diversity are engaging in prejudice, but the reason is mainly for population control - divide and conquer - manipulating people’s biases.

      The legacy of racism, in my opinion, mainly extends to capital accumulation and influence on mainstream culture. Minority communities are targets for drug traffickers seeking distribution networks near metropolitan centres that consume the most drugs. This influences subcultures, for example gangster rap, compounding problems that started out as an accident of geography.

      People fail to realise that psychological problems have two distinct features. Firstly they result from environmental factors on children’s development and secondly that these children can develop into dangerous adults.

      Targeting the traffickers and money launderers is the best way to unfuck the situation.

      [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Agreed.

      /s/DeepState/comments/4a3s/cia_private_prisons_pushed_gangster_rap_the/

      [–][deleted]  (12 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

        Friedman was a fraud, a genius yes, but still a fraud. He was an undercover Postmodernist. He made Libertarianism the topological anti-type of Liberalism and Individualism, which facilitated the highjacking of the 1970's Neo-Liberal movement in order to expand Pax Americana to include the Gulf states. In Europe this meant subversion of central bank orthodoxy in a similar way to Japan and Germany under the Marshall plan. And in Britain it meant shutting down hundreds of small circulation newspapers. Not very Libertarian. Friedman's on my list of Nobel price winners that should have their awards revoked, as well as Obama and Kissinger.

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

        Agreed. Further, read "The Shock Doctrine" for insight into the devastation those Chicago School plans wrought.

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        The shock doctrine is full of factual errors, for example the Chicago School were mostly french economists that had nothing to do with Chicago.

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        Interesting. It's a terrific book nonetheless. If you know of any critical analysis of it I'd love to see it for a wider perspective.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        Wikipedia entry for the IMF used to be very good. Basically, the IMF was setup so that surplus countries could lend to deficit countries that were in trouble. It was to be an alternative for what was called the ‘classical remedy’ to deficits. Which meant inducing a recession to reduce consumption. But since the 1970s the IMFs purpose was subverted. The US had become the largest surplus country but remained the IMFs largest contributor. So the IMF became a means of applying the ‘classical remedy’ to deficits. And I should add that the IMF has always been run by Europeans, just with American money, so it’s subversion was a joint effort.

        [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        It's interesting how it all gets corrupted.

        For some reason microloans sprang to mind. They sound good, and can help people start up for themselves, but it's been corrupted into a problem. A micro loan lost is a hit most westerners can easily absorb. But they've got it so that all the microloan people of a region keep track of each other so they rat each other out in order never have losses which is impossible.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          He logically argued against Keynesian economics...

          Did he? Keynesianism resurfaced in 2008 because excluding banks and money from economic models produces a nonsense view of the economy.

          Did you know that The Bank of England didn't know how to create new money during the 2008 financial crisis? They had to dig through dusty old books in storage to find out. That was the result of people like Friedman 'burying' Keynesian economics.

          There's a famous video clip of Friedman arguing about cheaper prices. The thing is, wages are prices and no one likes cheaper wages.

          As for unintended consequences being the cause for most government failures I only partially agree. The cross over between government and private interests seems to be the epicentre of most failures, especially when they decide they've defeated the business cycle once again.

          Edit: typo

          [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Classical economics.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I personally like Hayek more than Friedman.

          [–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Read "The Shock Doctrine" for insight into the devastation those Chicago School plans wrought.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

          From The Road to Serfdom (1944) by F.A. Hayek, chapter 11, The End of Truth:

          If one has not one's self experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion which it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates. It has to be seen to be understood how, if one of two brothers embraces the new faith, after a short while he appears to speak a different language which makes any real communication between them impossible. And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.

          [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

          You might like some of my work: https://leanpub.com/expandeddefinitions

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

          Thanks I'll give it a look.

          Edit: given it a look, no thanks.

          [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          70k word book analyzing recent degeneration of the english language, with new terms, intense discussion of police state, most difficult disputed words, and new maps of meaning, all original and independently produced.

          Your response: like you were offered a plate of french fries

          lol thanks for sharing about yourself, not surprised though given your reverence for sewell and friedman

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          From our other discussion: Let me put it another way. The segregation that was in the immediate past back then wasn't based on the beliefs Sowell was promoting. He was given his position to be a voice to the black community because the white people that shared these beliefs thought they were universal even though they didn't apply them universally up until then.

          I'm sorry I was dismissive of your work but I could see from the synopsis that you're engaging in a type of semantics that seeks to prejudice language e.g. Blue Church, rather than respect its function for facilitating discussion, which is what the Hayek quote is about.

          [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          "The segregation that was in the immediate past back then wasn't based on the beliefs Sowell was promoting. He was given his position to be a voice to the black community because the white people that shared these beliefs thought they were universal even though they didn't apply them universally up until then."

          That is not coherent english, would you like to restate this?

          "I could see from the synopsis that you're engaging in a type of semantics that seeks to prejudice language e.g. Blue Church, rather than respect its function for facilitating discussion,"

          That is not true, I actually eviscerate the idea that there is a blue church in this very book and point out that is itself a propganda tactic.

          If you even just read the introduction I state clearly that I am trying to elevate and generate productive discussion, and am open to any suggestions for improvement.

          What in the synopsis told you the opposite?

          But to me it sounds like you judged the book by its cover, labeled it "blue church" and then cancel-cultured it prior to any real consideration.

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Disingenuous bullshit. Grow up.

          Edit: If anyone is interested in what these deconstructionists are doing let me explain.

          They are finding arguments that they think will draw people away from their cause and redefining the terminology used in them in order to misrepresent the arguments. It's the root cause of all the hate and confusion we see today. It's essentially the same as a teenager spreading malicious gossip about someone they don't like to get everyone else to dislike them. Here's a tip for dealing with them in real life: tell them something personal about yourself that your mutual friends will know isn't true and wait for them to gleefully show everyone that they're full of shit and untrustworthy. In adults you can bet that they either have alcohol or cocaine issues, or they have a personality disorder.

          [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Who is "they"?

          There are so many incoherent aspects to this sentence.

          Are you saying my 70k book on contemporary etymology is the same as a teenager's gossip?

          How does that appy to this thread about thomas sewell or my comment in any way? How is me telling you you are incoherent the same as gossip?

          For someone named mr obvious, your comments are impossible to decipher, and frankly seem randomly generated to waste everyones time.

          [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          No we won't commie.

          [–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          u/magnora7

          Debate pyramid ad hominem

          [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

          Oh is daddy going to save you commie?

          [–]sproketboy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Where's this quote from?